Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Jul 31 2014
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  

Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Resources
Subject Modules

Database updates


Judgments

Vijay Traders vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others  [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 25 Jul 2014]

Darshan Singh vs Commissioner of Excise, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Jul 2014]

Rambraksh Yadav vs Tihar Jail  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Jul 2014]

Kishori Lal vs Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Jul 2014]

Vidyawati vs Land Acquisition Collector, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Jul 2014]

Bhagwan Das vs Education Department, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Jul 2014]

O. P. Sobti vs Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Jul 2014]

Reema vs Commissioner of Industries, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Jul 2014]

Rama Gogia vs Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Jul 2014]

(1) Sukhdeo Govind Gawari; (2) Kacharu Shankar Kalawade; (3) Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation; (4) Govind Dhondu Gawari (Deceased) Through Sukhadeo Govind Gawari vs (1) State of Maharashtra Through Additional Government Pleader, Mumbai; (2) Land Acquisition Officer (No. 11) Pune; (3) Resettlement Officer Resettlement Office Collector Compound, Pune; (4) District Resettlement Officer Rajgurunagar, Pune  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 25 Jul 2014]

(1) United White Metals Limited, Mumbai; (2) Otis Elevator Company Limited, Mumbai vs (1) State of Maharashtra, Bombay; (2) Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai; (3) Joint Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai; (4) S. D. Govekar; (5) S. S. Salkar; (6) K. V. Joseph; (7) V. F. Dias; (8) N. B Tahsildar; (9) Otis Elevators Company (India) Limited, Mumbai; (10) United White Metals Limited, Mumbai  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 25 Jul 2014]

Ashish Dabas S/o V. S. Dabas vs (1) Union of India and others Secretary, DOP and T, New Delhi; (2) Union of India and others Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman, New Delhi; (3) Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 25 Jul 2014]

Durg Vijay Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 25 Jul 2014]

S. C. Sharma vs Delhi Fire Service  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Jul 2014]

Ram Chander vs Education Department, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Jul 2014]

A. P. Sharma vs Indian Telephone Industries Through Director and another  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 24 Jul 2014]

Tulsi Commercial Company Limited vs Food Corporation of India and others  [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 24 Jul 2014]
(A)Land & Property - Administrative - Construction of Godowns - Non occupation - Compensation - Entitlement of - In or about October 1976 the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 formulated a scheme to increase the hired storage capacity of foodgrains for the defendant No. 1 by offering private parties guaranteed occupation of such godowns for the periods from 3 to 5 years implying a mechanism to repay the loans that might be advanced by banks to private entrepreneurs availing of the scheme from out of the rent receivable - Plaintiff availed of the scheme and constructed 20 godowns for the defendant No. 1 - According to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 had agreed to take 20 godowns to be constructed by the plaintiff for an agreed period at an agreed rate - Plaintiff constructed the godowns in accordance with the specifications required by the defendant No. 1 - Defendant No. 1 took two godowns and did not take the balance 18 in spite of offers by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 - Plaintiff offered the 18 godowns to defendant No. 1 on 4-4-1979 - Plaintiff, thereafter, approached HC and obtained leave to let out those 18 godowns to third parties - 18 godowns were let out to third parties on 20-11-1980 - Plaintiff was, therefore, seeking compensation on account of rent for a period of 19 months at the agreed rate of 40 paise per square feet, for the area which the defendant No. 1 did not takeover, and for the period, from the date when the godowns were ready, and the date when they were let out to third parties pursuant to orders of Court - What would be the actual measurement of space for which plaintiff was eligible to receive compensation -

Held, three components were required to be established by the plaintiff for the purpose of receiving compensation - One of such component was the quantum of the rent agreed - Plaintiff established that, the quantum of the rent agreed was 40 paise per square feet - Next component required to be established by the plaintiff was the area of the godowns and the third component was the period for which the plaintiff was entitled to the rent from the defendant No. 1 - In respect of the second and third component there were sketchy evidence on record at best - Quality of the evidence on record on those two counts was such that, a plausible view of dismissing the suit could be taken apart from the view that HC took - HC proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff solely on the consideration that, the plaintiff acted on a published scheme of the State authorities - Plaintiff had constructed twenty godowns covered under the scheme for the defendant No. 1 - Two out of the twenty godowns were taken over on lease by the defendant No. 1 - Defendant No. 1 refused to take over the balance 18 although liable to do so - Plaintiff let out 18 of the godowns to a third party after obtaining leave from the Court - Those factors weighed heavily on HC prompting HC to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff although the evidence in respect of the two components as noted by me above was, well, sketchy at best - Quantum of the floor area required consideration - There was no direct evidence as to the area comprised in the 18 godowns - In the plaint it was stated that, the 20 godowns measured an area of 3,02,984.80 square feet - 15 godowns were stated to have an area of 2,19,380 square feet - Two godowns for which the defendant had taken on rent comprised an area of 44,718.80 square feet - In such circumstances the plaintiff was required to be compensated for 2,58,266 square feet which was arrived at after subtracting 44,718.80 square feet from 3,02,984.80 square feet - Order accordingly.

(B) Land & Property - Administrative - Construction of Godowns - Non occupation - Compensation - Entitlement of - Whether what would be the amount of compensation -

Held, there was no direct evidence on record as to the actual date of completion - Date of completion was required to be deduced from the circumstances brought on record - Plaintiff claimed that, the godowns were ready on and from 6-4-1979 - Therefore, the defendant No. 1 could have taken the godowns only from the month of May 1979 - Plaintiff let out the godowns on 20-11-1980 - Defendant, therefore, would be liable till October 1980 - Defendant No. 1 was, therefore, liable for 18 months for the period from August 1978 till October 1980 - Rent at the rate of 40 paise per square feet on 2,58,266 square feet for 18 months (0.40 X 2,58,266 X 18) would be an aggregate of Rs.18,59,515.20p - Plaintiff would be entitled to a decree for Rs.18,59,515.20p. against the defendant No. 1 - Defendant would pay such sum within one month of the date of the decree - In default, the plaintiff would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the sum of Rs. 18,59,515.20p. on and from 1-11-1980 till realization - Order accordingly.


Chandrakanta Tripathy vs State of Orissa and others  [ORISSA HIGH COURT, 24 Jul 2014]

(1) Viresh; (2) V. K. Goel vs Dr. R. M. L. H and NH Employees CGHS Limited  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 24 Jul 2014]

Mohanlal Vaswani vs Sindhi Academy, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 24 Jul 2014]

Maya Devi vs Revenue Department, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 24 Jul 2014]

Karnail Chand vs Urban Development Department, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 24 Jul 2014]

Nitij Kumar vs G. B. Pant Hospital, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 23 Jul 2014]

Md. Moinuddin Ahmad vs State of Jharkhand and others  [JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 23 Jul 2014]

State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary Secondary Education Lucknow and others vs Ramayan Singh and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 23 Jul 2014]



Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer