Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)
Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 7 August, 2002 cites

Ganga Ram Hospital Trust vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 1 June, 2001

In the written statement a specific objection was taken by the defendant that the suit is barred under the provisions of Section 478(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. A similar objection was also raised and was the contention in Ganga Ram Hospital Trust v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi; reported in 2001 v AD (Delhi) 644. In the said decision, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that a suit of this nature is maintainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 26 - A Kumar - Full Document

Sheila Devi And Ors. vs Kishan Lal Kalra And Ors. on 26 July, 1974

It is agreed to by the counsel appearing for the parties that the said issue is also covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Sheila Devi and Ors. v. Shri Kishan Lal Kalra and Ors.; reported in 2nd (1974) II Delhi 491. In the said decision it was held that when it is a suit for injunction, it is for the plaintiff to value his own suit and such valuation for the purpose of injunction could be done at the option of the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 50 - Y Dayal - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs M/S.Trigon Investment Andtrading ... on 3 April, 1996

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Trigon Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Anr; , the Supreme Court held that property taxes due under the Act in respect of any land or building constitute first charge upon such land and building, subject only to the prior payment of the land revenue, if any, due to the Government thereon. It was further held that the primary liability to pay taxes is upon the Lesser where the building is let and upon the person entitled to let it, where the building is not let. It was also held that if the person primarily liable fails to pay the tax, it can be recovered from the occupier who in turn is entitled to be reimbursed by the person primarily liable. The decision goes on to hold that where a land or building is (SIC) the (SIC) is bound to give notice of such transfer to the Commissioner and failure to give such notice renders the transferor liable not only to penalty but also for payment of all property taxes from time to time payable in respect of such land or building until he gives such notice.The provisions of Section 128(4) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was also noticed in the said decision which expressly provides that the continued liability to pay the taxes cast upon the transferor (in addition to penalty) would not affect the liability of the transferee for payment of the said tax. The Supreme Court also took notice of the provisions of Section 126 of the Act and held that the said provision does not have the effect of relieving a transferee of a land/building from the liability to pay property taxes duly assessed thereon and that this liability extends even for the period prior to the transfer in his favor and such taxes can be recovered from him according to law. It was conclusively held in the said decision by the Supreme Court that the substantive liability of the owner to pay taxes cannot be defeated by the non-intimation under Section 128 or by the failure of the transferee to have his name entered in the municipal records.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 24 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next