Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.49 seconds)
Union Of India And Another vs Savitri Devi (Deceased) Through East ... on 8 March, 2010 cites

Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 January, 2006

24. Reliance was also placed on Justice Sisir Kumar Sen (Retd.) and others v. Union of India and another, 1996 V AD (Delhi) 231 LPA No. 336/2009 Page 18 of 27 which merely followed Birla Institute. The learned Single Judge who decided Justice Sisir Kumar Sen did not consider the plea raised on behalf of the lessor that the implication and interpretation of the Office Order No. 23/76 dated 31st March, 1976 was not debated or argued in Birla Institute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 138 - Cited by 101 - Full Document

Satish Kumar Mehta vs Union Of India & Anr. on 23 September, 2009

25. Learned counsel for the Appellant, on the other hand, relied upon Satish Kumar Mehta v. Union of India and another, 2009 VIII AD (Delhi) 593 which is also a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court. After referring to Birla Institute and Justice Sisir Kumar Sen it was opined that Birla Institute did not hold that only 1% penalty could be recovered and not the misuse charges itself. Similarly in Justice Sisir Kumar Sen also the question raised concerned the levy of penalty and it did not deal with the payment of misuse charges or dispensing with the payment of misuse charges.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Birla Institute Of Scientific Research vs Union Of India And Ors. on 12 July, 1993

23. Learned counsel for Savitri Devi relied upon two decisions rendered by learned Single Judges of this Court to contend that in terms of Clause 8 of the Office Order, only 1% of the entire misuse charges and penalty can be levied as token penalty by the lessor. The first such decision is Birla Institute of Scientific Research v. Union of India, LPA No. 336/2009 Page 17 of 27 1993 (2) RCR 646. In this decision, in paragraph 4 thereof, it has been mentioned that at an interim stage, a learned Single Judge had passed an order dated 4th November, 1996 to the effect that only 1% of the misuse charges could be recovered as token penalty. The contention of the lessor in that case was that since the eviction order under proviso (k) to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed without any contest, Clause 8 of the Office Order would not be applicable. It was noted that the same contention was dealt with in the order dated 4th November, 1996 and rejected. After the final hearing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge in the cited decision agreed with the interim view expressed on 4th November, 1996. All that was decided in that case was that it does not matter if the eviction order is passed under proviso (k) to Section 14(1) of the Act with contest or without contest. No doubt an observation was made to the effect that in terms of the interim order dated 4th November, 1996 only 1% of the charges could be levied by the lessor as token penalty, but in our opinion this is completely contrary to the scheme postulated by the Office Order.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1