Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.26 seconds)Section 138 in The New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Harcharan Singh vs Smt. Shivrani And Ors. on 20 February, 1981
22. It is settled that a notice
refused to be accepted by the addressee
can be presumed to have been served on
him, (vide Harcharan Singh
v. Smt. Shivrani, , and Jagdish Singh v. Natthu
Singh, .
Jagdish Singh vs Natthu Singh on 25 November, 1991
22. It is settled that a notice
refused to be accepted by the addressee
can be presumed to have been served on
him, (vide Harcharan Singh
v. Smt. Shivrani, , and Jagdish Singh v. Natthu
Singh, .
Government Servants Co-Operative ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 28 May, 1993
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred
to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Government
Servants Cooperative House Building Society Limited and
Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 13 December, 1996
21. In view of the aforesaid fact the impugned order
of the appellate authority and the impugned order of
assessing authority are hereby quashed. The matter is
remanded back to the assessing authority to determine
the rateable value in accordance with law in view of
the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in
M/s. Punj Sons Private Limited's case (supra) in so far
as the factor on the security deposit and advance rent
of more than six months is concerned.
Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 1 July, 1996
20. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 also refers
to the same judgment and more specifically para 5.1
above where reference has been made to the judgment in
Sir Sobha Singh's case (supra) where the court has
noticed that there are cases where huge amounts as
interest free security are taken as a device to realise
interest instead of Realizing higher rent. Learned
counsel for the respondent however, does not seriously
dispute the fact that a bare reading of the assessment
order shows that there is no finding recorded that the
rate of rent was artificially reduced and that the
security deposit and advance rent of more than 6 months
have been taken only to compensate the lower rent.
That being the position, the assessment order cannot be
sustained since the assessing authority has to arrive
at a finding to this effect before the interest can be
included. Merely because security deposit is taken or
advance rent is taken of more than six months cannot
ipso facto imply that the same is to compensate the
reduced rent and the same can be added only once the
assessing authority comes to a finding of artificial
reduction of rent by making appropriate comparisons.