TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 577
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant from filing the Court Fee is declined granting two weeks time to the appellant to file the Court Fee. RFA(OS) No.36/2012 and RFA No.37/2012 1. Since counsel as above appears for the respondent, and a short issue arises for consideration in the two appeals, with consent of parties arguments have been heard in the appeals at the admission stage. 2. Files of CS(OS) No.423/2011 and CS(OS) No.424/2011 have been requisitioned. The files have been perused. 3. The respondent is the owner of property bearing Municipal No.2, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. 4. Vide two registered lease deeds executed on October 09, 2006, two different portions of property No.2 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi were let out to the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f contract vis- a-vis the final liability to bear the tax. The plea of the respondent was that under clause-5 of the lease deed, the lessor had covenanted that the lessee would pay all levies and taxes which may be imposed by any local authority or the Government. 12. Not being in a position to resolve the dispute, the respondent filed two suits registered as CS(OS) No.1016/2008 and CS(OS) No.1018/2008 praying a decree to be passed in its favour and against the appellant with respect to the service tax paid by the respondent with respect to the two leased premises. 13. Vide judgment and decree dated October 20, 2010, the learned Single Judge decreed the two suits holding that when the lease deed dated October 09, 2006 was executed bet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant. Mr.Simran Mehta, Advocate for the Respondent. CM 3737/2011 (delay) in RFA(OS) No.24-25/2011 We have perused the reasons mentioned in the application for condoning the delay of 84 days in filing the present Appeal. Subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs payable to counsel for the respondent within one week from today, the delay is condoned. Counsel for the appellant undertakes to pay the costs within the said period. Application stands disposed of. RFA(OS) No.24-25/2011 Admit. CM No.3738/2011 (stay) in RFA(OS) No.24-25/2011 The decretal amount, that is Rs. 3,55,270/- and Rs. 24,270/- has already been deposited in this Court. The execution proceedings are stayed. The Registrar General is directed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e two suits were filed, both of which have been dismissed vide identically worded orders dated February 27, 2012. The order reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no merit in the present review application. The review application is accordingly dismissed." 19. It be highlighted as urged by learned counsel for the appellant, that notice was issued in the two review applications before they were dismissed. 20. Grievance raised in the appeal is that no such concession, as stands recorded in the order dated January 04, 2012 was made and that the learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the review application by passing a cryptic order. Counsel urges that the learned Single Judge was obliged to gi....