TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds authority to correct rent fixation mistake under Chandigarh rules</h1> <h3>UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARHADMN. & ORS. Versus MANAGING SOCIETY, GOSWAMI, GDSDC</h3> UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARHADMN. & ORS. Versus MANAGING SOCIETY, GOSWAMI, GDSDC - 1996 AIR 1759, 1996 (2) SCR 620, 1996 (7) SCC 665, 1996 (0) Suppl. JT ... Issues:- Challenge to demand notice for payment of difference in ground rent- Interpretation of Chandigarh Lease-hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973- Power of Chandigarh Administration to correct mistake in rent fixation- Application of equitable estoppel in the caseAnalysis:The judgment revolves around the challenge to a demand notice issued by the Chandigarh Administration to a Society regarding the payment of the difference in ground rent. The Society had been allotted land for 99 years subject to the Chandigarh Lease-hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973. The rules mandated the lessee to pay annual rent based on a percentage of the premium. The Chandigarh Administration sought to rectify a mistake in rent fixation made in 1975, which was brought to its attention in 1991. The Society contended that the Administration had no power of review under the Act and rules to revise the rent after such a long period, and that it was estopped from passing prejudicial orders due to the Society's investments in the allotted land.The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the demand notice based on the rules' mandatory provisions. The Court emphasized that there was no question of review in this case, as the Administration was correcting a clear mistake rather than canceling the allotment. The judgment highlighted that contracts violating mandatory legal provisions must be enforced as per the law, without exceptions. The Court dismissed the argument of equitable estoppel, stating that no estoppel can stand against a statute. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the Society's writ petition without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
