Advocates Appeared:
A.S.CHANDH.OK, ARV.ND SHAH, M.S.CHANDH.OK, MANM.T ARORA

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

1. The case involves a dispute between C. J. International Hotels Limited (the plaintiff) and the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (the defendant) regarding the payment of license fees for a hotel property situated at Windsor Place, New Delhi (!) (!) .

2. The hotel is operated under a license agreement that was originally executed in 1982, with subsequent supplementary agreements allowing the plaintiff to pay license fees in installments. The primary obligation under the original agreement was for the plaintiff to pay 21% of the hotel’s gross turnover as license fee (!) (!) (!) .

3. The plaintiff contends that the license fee was to be calculated based on the gross turnover certified by their auditors, including certain deductions like franchise fees, taxes, and expenses related to telecommunication and bank interest, among others. They argue that their liability is limited to 21% of this certified gross turnover (!) (!) (!) .

4. The defendant asserts that the license fee at 21% of the gross turnover as per the balance sheets is the correct basis for calculation, and that the supplementary agreements did not modify this fundamental term. They also contend that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the terms when participating in the auction and entering into the agreement (!) (!) .

5. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant had promised to reconsider the license fee based on representations and a note from the Lieutenant Governor, who suggested forming a committee to examine the issue. The plaintiff claims that the defendant failed to act on this promise or to give a detailed reasoned decision, which they argue is a violation of principles of natural justice (!) (!) (!) .

6. The defendant argues that the Lieutenant Governor's note was merely an internal official opinion not binding on the parties and that the defendant was within its rights to reject the plaintiff’s representations after examining the matter. They also contend that the note was not communicated to the plaintiff and thus did not constitute a binding decision (!) (!) (!) (!) .

7. The court observed that the defendant was not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers in dismissing the plaintiff’s representations and was entitled to decide without detailed reasons, especially when the matter involved contractual rights rather than statutory or administrative powers (!) (!) .

8. The court emphasized that the primary rights and obligations of the parties are rooted in the contract, and any rights claimed must flow from the contractual terms. The court also noted that the supplementary agreements only allowed for installment payments but did not alter the core obligation to pay 21% of the gross turnover (!) (!) .

9. The court considered the evidence regarding the calculation of gross turnover, including the auditors’ certificates and the method of deductions, and found that the plaintiff was prima facie liable to pay license fees based on 21% of the certified gross turnover, after appropriate deductions (!) (!) (!) .

10. The court acknowledged the public interest and the defendant’s need for funds for municipal functions, which favored the defendant’s claim. It granted the defendant’s application to recover license fees in installments and restrained interference with the plaintiff’s possession and amenities, provided the plaintiff deposits the calculated license fee (!) (!) (!) .

11. The court clarified that the order was interim and not a final determination of the case’s merits, and any observations made should not be construed as such (!) .

Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.