{"id":131925,"date":"2002-01-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-01-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002"},"modified":"2015-12-07T18:45:12","modified_gmt":"2015-12-07T13:15:12","slug":"alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002","title":{"rendered":"Alokit Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 4 January, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Alokit Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 4 January, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 539, 2002 (62) DRJ 27<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Sarin<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M Sarin<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Manmohan Sarin, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. By this common judgment, the above<br \/>\nthree writ petitions are being disposed, as the<br \/>\nparties, the premises and the questions arising,<br \/>\nthough relating to determination of rateable value<br \/>\nfor different assessment years, are common.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Petitioner, M\/s. Alokit Export Pvt. Ltd.,<br \/>\nhas filed the above three writ petitioners. By writ<br \/>\npetition No. 1574\/99, petitioner seeks quashing of<br \/>\nbill No. 19705 dated 5th January, 1999, in the sum<br \/>\nof Rs. 21,53,022\/- computed on the basis of rateable value of Rs. 77,08,750\/- (Rupees Seventy Seven<br \/>\nlacs eight thousand, seven hundred and fifty),<br \/>\ndetermined by New Delhi Municipal Council in<br \/>\nrespect of 5-A, Amrita Shergil Marg New Delhi. The<br \/>\nbill assailed in the writ petition includes the<br \/>\nHouse tax demand for the year ending 1998-99. A<br \/>\ndirection is also sought to restrain the respondent\/NDMC from recovering property tax beyond the<br \/>\nrateable value of Rs. 11,316\/- less 10 per cent.<br \/>\nfor the said property. Writ petition No. 1517\/2000<br \/>\nseeks to assail bill No. 9605 dated 19.11.1999,<br \/>\nclaiming a sum of Rs. 31,85,763\/- (rupees thirty one<br \/>\nlacs eighty five thousand seven hundred and sixty<br \/>\nthree), which also includes arrears up to 31.3.1999<br \/>\nand the house tax amount for the year ending 1999-<br \/>\n2000, after giving rebate of 25% for self-occupation computed on rateable value determined at<br \/>\nRs. 77,087,750\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p> Civil Writ petition No. 7009\/2000, seeks<br \/>\nquashing of bill No. 8637 dated 29.9.2000, claiming<br \/>\na sum of Rs. 73,87,753\/- (rupees seventy three lacs<br \/>\neighty seven thousand seven hundred and fifty<br \/>\nthree), computed on the basis of retable value of<br \/>\nRs. 69,37,8000\/- with a current demand of<br \/>\nRs. 13,87,560\/- for the year 2000-2001 and arrears<br \/>\nof Rs. 60,00,193\/-. Petitioner also seek restraint<br \/>\non the respondent\/NDMC from recovering tax, computed at the admitted rateable value of more than<br \/>\nRs. 2,58,212\/- yielding annual tax of Rs. 51,642.40.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. Notices to show cause in CW.No. 1517\/2000<br \/>\nand DW.No. 1574\/99 had been issued. In CM.2439\/99<br \/>\nin CW.No. 1574\/99, an interim order, restraining<br \/>\nrecovery pursuant to bill dated 5.11.1999, subject<br \/>\nto depositing admitted amount, was passed. While<br \/>\nin CW.No.1517\/2000 stay of the impugned bill dated<br \/>\n19.11.1999 was not granted. In CW.No. 7009\/2000,<br \/>\nnotice had not been issued and the case was directed to be listed along with the above two<br \/>\nconnected writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Counsel for the parties have been heard.<br \/>\nSynopsis of submissions has also been filed by<br \/>\nboth the parties. Case set up by the petitioner<br \/>\nis that the premises in question bearing No. 5-A,<br \/>\nAmrita Shergil Marg was constructed as far back in<br \/>\nthe year 1939 and had been let out at a rental of<br \/>\nRs. 250\/- p.m. and was assessed by the NDMC at a<br \/>\nrateable value of Rs. 2400\/- less 10%. The petitioner assails the determination of the rateable<br \/>\nvalue based on the purchase price by the petitioner vide a sale deed dated 12.5.1994.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Learned counsel Mr. R.P.Sharma submitted<br \/>\nthat the standard rent of the property had been<br \/>\ndetermined prior to 1941. The said statutory rent<br \/>\nas determined should be followed and rateable<br \/>\nvalue determined based thereon. Further that the<br \/>\nrespondents could not initiate proceedings to<br \/>\ndetermine the rateable value and assess it on a<br \/>\nas is other than the standard rent in terms of<br \/>\nproviso to Section 63(1) of the NDMC Act.<br \/>\nLearned counsel further submitted that the NDMC<br \/>\nAct came into force on 10.11.1995. The notice<br \/>\nissued in February 1995, seeking to revise the<br \/>\namendment list for the year 1994-95, 1995-96 was<br \/>\nwithout the authority of law.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Learned counsel for the respondent on<br \/>\nthe other hand objected to the maintainability of<br \/>\nthe writ petitions on the ground that assessment<br \/>\norder dated 12.9.1996, passed for the base year by<br \/>\nwhich the rateable value for the assessment years<br \/>\n1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 had been determined<br \/>\nin respect of the property in question, had been<br \/>\nassailed by the petitioner vide a writ petition<br \/>\nbearing CW No. 4857\/96. A learned Single Judge had<br \/>\ndismissed the said writ petition, vide order dated<br \/>\n6.12.1996 on the ground that efficacious remedy by<br \/>\nway of statutory appeal was available and all the<br \/>\ngrounds that had been taken in the writ petition<br \/>\ncould be taken before the Appellant authority.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of<br \/>\ndismissal of CW No. 4857\/96 had preferred LPA<br \/>\nNo. 107\/97, challenging the order of the Single<br \/>\nJudge. Apart from the other grounds taken one of<br \/>\nthe grounds urged in the LPA was that the impugned<br \/>\nnotice of February 1995, for revision in the<br \/>\nassessment list was without jurisdiction as the<br \/>\nNDMC Act came into force subsequently on<br \/>\n10.11.1995. Hence the notice was without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. Learned counsel for the respondent<br \/>\ncontends that after hearing submissions of both<br \/>\nthe parties, the Division Bench was of the view<br \/>\nthat the impugned notice as issued was valid and<br \/>\ntherefore was inclined to dismiss the appeal.<br \/>\nLearned counsel for respondent submits that the<br \/>\npetitioner at that stage sought permission for<br \/>\nwithdrawal of the LPA with liberty to file a<br \/>\nregular appeal before the Appellate Authority.<br \/>\nThe petitioner further prayed that the objection<br \/>\nas to limitation should not be pressed by the<br \/>\nrespondents as otherwise the appeal would be<br \/>\nbarred by limitation. The respondent gave its<br \/>\nconsent for the said concession and the Division<br \/>\nBench accordingly disposed of the appeal on the<br \/>\nabove terms.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. The relevant and operative portion of<br \/>\nthe order passed in LPA No. 107\/97 is reproduced<br \/>\nfor the facility of reference:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;After arguing for a while learned<br \/>\ncounsel for appellant Mr. R.P. Sharma prayed<br \/>\nfor withdrawal of this appeal if appellant<br \/>\nwas granted liberty to file Appeal before the<br \/>\nstatutory forum and if time taken in prosecuting his writ petition and Appeal was not<br \/>\ntaken in account for limitation purposes.:\n<\/p>\n<p> Mr. Arvind Sah, learned counsel for<br \/>\nrespondent submitted that no limitation plea<br \/>\nwould be pressed into service against appellant provided he satisfied other requirements<br \/>\nfor filing such Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p> This appeal is accordingly dismissed as<br \/>\nwithdrawn with liberty prayed for granted to<br \/>\nappellant who may file an Appeal before<br \/>\nappropriate forum within 30 days from today<br \/>\nand in that case no plea of limitation be<br \/>\ntaken against him and recovery sought till<br \/>\nAppellant Forum considers his interim stay<br \/>\napplication if any filed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. Learned counsel for the respondent<br \/>\ntherefore relying on the order passed by the<br \/>\nDivision Bench as noted above submits that the<br \/>\nassessments for the subsequent years which is in<br \/>\nchallenge in the aforesaid three writ petitions,<br \/>\nhas been done by simply adopting the previous<br \/>\nassessment order dated 12.9.1996. The petitioner<br \/>\nhimself having agreed to file appeal after dismissal of his writ petition and withdrawal of the<br \/>\nLPA, cannot now be permitted to invoke the extraordinary writ jursidction for the subsequent<br \/>\nyears by assailing the same in the writ jurisdiction and not availing of the appellate remedy.<br \/>\nLearned counsel for respondent argued that it<br \/>\nwould be only proper if the challenge to the<br \/>\nassessment order and proceedings for subsequent<br \/>\nyears, are also decided by the appellate authority, which is seized of the appeal against the assessment order determining the rateable value<br \/>\nfor the base assessment year.\n<\/p>\n<p> It is therefore urged that the court<br \/>\nshould desist from exercising and entertaining the<br \/>\nwrit petitions in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner having withdrawn the challenge to the base assessment year by way of writ<br \/>\npetition and the appeal thereto and having agreed<br \/>\nto challenge the same before the appellate court,<br \/>\ncannot be permitted to adopt a different approach<br \/>\nin respect of subsequent assessments. Moreover it<br \/>\nis submitted that in the present writ petitions<br \/>\nthe plea regarding the validity of the notice<br \/>\ndated 23.2.1995, would also not arise in as much<br \/>\nas the respondents while adopting the rateable<br \/>\nvalue as determined vide order dated 12.9.1996,<br \/>\nhad issued public notices inviting objections.<br \/>\nThe notices issued in respect of the assessment<br \/>\nproceedings under challenge in the writ petition<br \/>\nwere issued in the same financial year. This the<br \/>\ncounsel urged without prejudice to its contention<br \/>\nthat the notice issued on 23.2.1995 was legal and<br \/>\nvalid. Learned counsel for the respondent also<br \/>\nrelied on <a href=\"\/doc\/1770082\/\">Gujrat Agro Industries Company Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad and Ors<\/a> reported at JT 1999 (3) 259 wherein the<br \/>\ncourt rejected the argument that simply because<br \/>\nthe onerous condition for deposit of tax was<br \/>\nthere, the right to appeal has become illusory.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. Learned counsel Mr. R.P. Sharma in response to the objections of the respondent on<br \/>\nmaintainability of the petitions urged that each<br \/>\nassessment year was a separate and independent one<br \/>\nand there would be no bar or estoppel on the<br \/>\npetitioner assailing the assessment orders for<br \/>\nsubsequent years in writ petitions. He submitted<br \/>\nthat effect of withdrawal of an earlier writ<br \/>\npetition cannot operate as estoppel or bar to the<br \/>\nmaintainability of writ petitions challenging the<br \/>\nassessment for subsequent years as long as the<br \/>\nassessments were vitiated by lack of jurisdiction<br \/>\nand were against settled law. He sought to draw<br \/>\nsupport from M.N. Soi v. NDMC reported at ILR<br \/>\n1975 (ii) Delhi 765 para 3, to the effect that even<br \/>\nif the assessed had omitted to rely on the order<br \/>\nof a Rent Controller fixing the standard rent in<br \/>\nan assessment year, the same does not preclude<br \/>\nfrom questioning the assessment for subsequent<br \/>\nyears. Learned counsel also sought to justify his<br \/>\nplea with regard to the notice of February 1995<br \/>\nrevising the assessment list as being nonest.<br \/>\nLearned counsel also sought to place reliance on a<br \/>\ndecision of the Division Bench of this court in<br \/>\nS.P. Aggarwal v. NDMC LPA No. 11\/1997 a Division<br \/>\nBench of this court by relying on a larger bench decision of the Supreme Court in Himmat Lal Hari<br \/>\nLal Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported at<br \/>\n1954 SCR 1122, held the appellate remedy was onerous. The Division Bench notwithstanding the<br \/>\njudgment of the Supreme Court in Shyam Kishore<br \/>\nv. M.C.D. reported at , quashed the assessment and remanded the case.<br \/>\nLearned counsel for the petitioner therefore<br \/>\nsubmitted that the petitioners&#8217; writ petition<br \/>\nshould also be entertained.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration<br \/>\nto the submissions urged. It is true that the<br \/>\nexhaustion of the alternate remedy is not absolute<br \/>\nrequirement, prior to the entertainment of a writ<br \/>\npetition. it is also correct that while that a<br \/>\nDivision Bench of this court relying on Himmat<br \/>\nLal&#8217;s case (Supra) entertained the writ petition,<br \/>\nnotwithstanding the existence of an alternate<br \/>\nremedy. However in S.P. Aggarwal&#8217;s case the court<br \/>\nhad clearly come to the conclusion that the rate-<br \/>\nable value of the premises had to be determined<br \/>\nunder Section 6(1)(B)(2B) of the Rent Control<br \/>\nAct and not under Chapter V of the said Act which<br \/>\nhad no application. Thus the court finding it to<br \/>\nbe a case of lack of jurisdiction and a jurisdictional error has remanded the case for fresh<br \/>\nassessment relying on Himmat Lal&#8217;s case where<br \/>\nagain the relevant sales tax provision had been<br \/>\ndeclared ultra vires and imposition of tax without<br \/>\nauthority of law.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. The present cases are on a different<br \/>\nfooting altogether. Learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent has rightly contended that the petitioner had challenged the determination of rate-<br \/>\nable value for the base year 1994-95, 1995-96,<br \/>\n1996-97 in CW No. 4857\/96. The challenge had<br \/>\nbeen made on all admissible grounds including the<br \/>\nground relating to the validity of the notice of<br \/>\nFebruary 1995. The petitioner failed in the writ<br \/>\npetition and in LPA as noticed earlier, withdrew<br \/>\nthe challenge and accepted to take resort to the<br \/>\nnormal appellate remedy. The question to be<br \/>\nconsidered here is that the petitioner having<br \/>\nagreed to invoke the appellate remedy and having<br \/>\nobtained a concession also from the respondents of<br \/>\nnot raising the bar of limitation, should he be<br \/>\npermitted for the subsequent years where the<br \/>\nchallenge is on the same grounds to avail of the<br \/>\nremedy of extraordinary writ jursidction on the<br \/>\nground that there is no estoppel or statutory bar<br \/>\nand each assessment year can be separately challenged. The answer to this has to be in the<br \/>\nnegative. In such circumstances, the court would<br \/>\nnot exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction<br \/>\nand will require the petitioner to avail of the<br \/>\nnormal appellate remedy which he is already availing in respect of the base year. There is also<br \/>\nmerit in the submission of the counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent that the appellate authority must be<br \/>\nleft free to decide the appeal on merits without<br \/>\nin any manner being influenced by the entertainment<br \/>\nof the challenge to the subsequent year in<br \/>\nwrit jurisdiction and the possibility of arriving<br \/>\nat a different finding. Moreover, without expressing<br \/>\nany opinion on merits of the matter, the<br \/>\npetitioner has also not made out a prima facie<br \/>\ncase of total lack of jurisdiction. The legal<br \/>\nplease raised can be conveniently taken before the<br \/>\nAppellate Authority. The writ petitions are held<br \/>\nto be not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed<br \/>\nand are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. Following the order as passed by the<br \/>\nDivision Bench in LPA No. 107\/97, the petitioner<br \/>\nmay prefer appeals within 30 days from today. If<br \/>\nthe appeals are so filed the respondents would not<br \/>\nraise limitation as objection. With a view to<br \/>\nsubserve the ends of justice, it is directed that<br \/>\nthe appeal as preferred by the petitioner against<br \/>\nthe order dated 12.9.1996 i.e. the base year if<br \/>\npending be disposed of expeditiously and within a<br \/>\nperiod of 3 months from today.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Alokit Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 4 January, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 539, 2002 (62) DRJ 27 Author: M Sarin Bench: M Sarin JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. By this common judgment, the above three writ petitions are being disposed, as the parties, the premises and [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131925","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Alokit Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 4 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Alokit Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 4 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-07T13:15:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Alokit Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 4 January, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-07T13:15:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2214,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002\",\"name\":\"Alokit Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 4 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-07T13:15:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Alokit Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 4 January, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Alokit Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 4 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Alokit Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 4 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-07T13:15:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Alokit Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 4 January, 2002","datePublished":"2002-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-07T13:15:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002"},"wordCount":2214,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002","name":"Alokit Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 4 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-07T13:15:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alokit-exports-pvt-ltd-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-on-4-january-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Alokit Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 4 January, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131925","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=131925"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131925\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131925"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131925"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131925"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}