Disposed

M/S Prominent Hotels Limited v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Delhi HC8 Apr 2016LPA/242/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court clarified that dismissing a writ petition does not foreclose the appellant's right to contest the correctness of a commercial demand before the Estate Officer. Jurisdiction of the EO and parties' rights to argue merits are expressly reserved.

What did the court decide?

Clarified that the appellant's right to contest the Show Cause Notice is not foreclosed and the Estate Officer's right to consider merits is not foreclosed.

M/S Prominent Hotels Limited Vs New Delhi Municipal… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

LPA 242/2016, C.M. APPL.13504-13507/2016 M/S PROMINENT HOTELS LIMITED ..... Appellant Through : Sh. Mohan Parasaran, Sr. Advocate with Sh. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, Sh. PRadeep Ranjan Tiwary, Sh. Ashwin Kumar D.S., Sh. Prafulla Ranjan Tiwary and Sh. Devamani Mishra, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through : Sh. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Sh. Vipul. G, Sh. Akash Nagar, Ms. Pallavi Shali and Ms. Natasha Thakur, Advocates.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

¶7

O R D E R % 08.04.2016

¶8

The appellant’s grievance is that the learned Single Judge, while dismissing its writ petition, challenging a Show Cause Notice which demanded `140.20 crores (towards alleged arrears of license fee) has foreclosed the right to contest the correctness of such figure. The appellant had instituted a suit on the file of the Civil Court seeking inter alia a declaration that the terms contained in the license fee deed (of license) issued by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) were unconscionable and void. The suit was initially decreed. The NDMC’s appeal was allowed. In review proceeding, i.e. R.P. No.448/201 in RFA 78/2014 – NDMC v. M/s. Prominent Hotels

¶9

Limited , the appellant had in fact given up the claim that the terms of the license deed were unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable.

¶10

It was urged that the learned Single Judge, in not interfering with the impugned Show Cause Notice implicitly endorsed it and this has prejudiced the appellant’s claim that the demand for `140.20 crores was unfounded having regard to the terms agreed to which are enforceable in law.

¶11

This Court has heard the learned ASG who appeared for NDMC on advance notice and submitted that the rights of the parties to contend whatever is permissible in law, including the appellant’s right to contest the correctness and validity of the amount demanded, i.e. `140.20 crores, has in no way been foreclosed. Likewise, the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer (EO) to consider and render decision on the merits of such demand is also not foreclosed. In order to allay any such apprehension, it is clarified that on both aspects, the EO shall consider and hear the parties and render a reasoned order. All rights and contentions of parties are expressly reserved. It goes without saying that nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the issues to be decided by the EO. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶12

Order dasti.

¶13

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶14

DEEPA SHARMA, J

¶15

APRIL 08, 2016/ajk

M/S Prominent Hotels Limited v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Prominent Hotels Limited v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rati Ram Decd Thr Lrs & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Commissioner Commercial Tax, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh Vs the Official Liquidator & Ors.

Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Govt of Madhya Pradesh Vs the Official Liquidator & Ors.

H K Madhia Vs the Financial Commissioner & Ors.

Ashok K Chauhan & Ors. Vs Ch Financial Services Inc. Panama

Omway Buildstate Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Satyendra Jain