Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAM CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA versus CHAIRMAN, DDA AND ANR.

Decided
22 November 2006
Judges listed
S.B. SINHA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 277 · 2006 INSC 879

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. Leave granted.

p. 278, margin B

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and Order dated I 1.2.205 of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in LPA No. 1045/ 2004 of CWP No. 62 of 2004.

p. 278, margin B

Heard the appellant in-person and Mr. V .B. Saharya, learned counsel for the DDA.

p. 278, margin C

The impugned judgment states as under: " This appeal is preferred against the order made by learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 62/2004 on 28.9.2004. Learned single Judge has examined the aspect of property tax which has no concern with the services provided by the Delhi Development Authority. About the ground rent the learned single Judge has taken into consideration the facts and the explanation put forth by the respondents and the accounting practice was found to be not unscientific. In this view of the matter, we would not like to interfere. Hence the appeal is dismissed".

p. 278, margin D

In our opinion the impugned judgment is a cryptic judgment, and with due respect to the Division bench we feel that the. matter in dispute has not been considered by it properly. In particular, we are of the opinion that the Division Bench should have carefully considered whether the service charge levied by the DOA was valid, considering the fact that service charge is a fee and not a tax and hence ther~ should be a broad co-relation (though not an exact co-relation) between the total service charges levied by the DDA and the value of the services provided to the citizens.

p. 278, margin F

The Division Bench also should have considered in detail the appellant's grievance regarding the ground rent.

p. 278, margin G

In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment dated 11.2.2005 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Division Bench for a fresh decision after hearing the parties, in accordance with law. The Division Bench is requested to give a more detailed judgment dealing with the matter in issue, anci dealing with the contentions of the appellant.

p. 279, margin A

The appeal is allowed. No costs. K.K.T. Appeal allowed.

p. 279, margin B