Ghaziabad development authority Vs Balbir singh

Case no : - appeal (civil) 7173 of 2002 Petitioner: Ghaziabad development authority Respondent: Balbir Singh Date of judgment : 17/03/2004 Bench: - Sn Variava and H.K. Sema

In case question is whether grant of @ 18 % per annum by the consumer forum in all case is justifiable. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award pass by the national consumer disputes redressal commission. The appellant has deposited the entire amount of 18% interest however what is being awarded as compensation. It is therefore necessecarily has to be based on finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury In civil appeal no. 7224 of 2002, the respondent has applied for a house in a scheme floated in 1992. He had paid entire cost. He had been allotted a flat and issued a reservation letter. Yet no possession was given. And later on respondent was informed that for unavoidable reason the house has been allotted to somebody else and if he desires, he can obtain an alternate flat at a much higher price . So in order to summarize we can say that compensation cannot be uniform and can best of illustrate by considering cases where possession is being desired to be delivered and cases where only monies are directed to return. In former case the compensation for harassment will necessary have to be less because in a way that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting but in latter case the party suffering a loss in as much as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/ plot. He is being deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefits of the escalation of the price of that flat/plot. Therefore the compensation in such cases would necessarily have to be higher.

BACCHA .F GULDAR VS COMMISON OF INCOME TAX

Bench : Mahanjan M Chand Petitioner: Bachca F Guldar Respondent: Commisioner of income tax Bombay Date of judgment : 28/10/1954 Act : Indian income tax act (xi of 1922), ss.2(1),4(3)(viii),69 and rule 24 agriculture income, meaning of growing and manufacturing tea companies dividend, nature of dividend how arises distinction between company and firm- decided case on english tax law .

As a body corporate, the company is entailed to own and hold property in its Nome the property norms the company and the members have no direct proprietary rights over the property of the company It is important to remember that us a shareholder is not a part of owner of the company or its property: he is only given certain rights by law example to receive dividends or to attend and vote to general meetings the facts lie within a narrow compass. the appellant, Mrs. Baccha F Guldar was , in the accounting year 1949-50.