Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H449
Tek Chand, J.1. This first appeal has been preferred by Manishwar Dutt Vashisht against his wife Indra Kumari under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act 25 of 1955) from the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 29th of March 1961.2. A petition was made by the husband on 28th of October 1955 under Section 12 of the Act, praying that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent Indra Kumari be annulled and a decree of nullity passed on the ground that the marriage was in contravention of the condition specified in Section 5(ii) in so far as the respondent Indra Kumari was a lunatic at the time of the marriage. The marriage between the parties was performed on 9th of May 1955 at Amritsar when the petitioner was under 30 years and the age of the respondent was 20/21 years. It is alleged in the petition that after the marriage he learnt that his wife was a lunatic both before and at the time of the marriage and has been of unsound mind; and her insanity prior to marri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H493
D.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class Bhatinda dissolving the appellant's marriage with the respondent under Section 13(1) (ix) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. There is no dispute on facts. The appellant suffered an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights. That decree was never executed and after the lapse of two years, the present petition for divorce was filed under Section 13(1)(ix) of the Act. The petition was opposed mainly on the grounds that the ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights was obtained by fraud, and that in any case the decree-holder had to seek its compliance and as no compliance was sought, it cannot be held that there has been no compliance with the decree. It is true that no steps were ever taken to execute the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. No arguments have been addressed on the first ground which was found against the appellant. 2. So far as the second ground is co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H369; 1963CriLJ319
ORDERH.R. Khanna, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Raghbir Singh praying that Smt. Gurdev Kaur be set at liberty. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 17th December, 1962, Smt. Gurdev Kaur was taken into custody by Assistant Sub-Inspector Hamir Singh of Police Station Kotwali Bhatinda when there was a dispute between her brothers Tidda, Relu and Malla on one side arid Raghbir Singh petitioner on the other regarding Smt. Gurdev Kaur. The Assistant Sub-Inspector then produced Smt. Gurdev Kaur before learned Magistrate 1st Class, Bnatinda, with a report that Smt. Gurdev Kaur had fallen into evil hands and that she might be sent to the Protective Home. The learned Magistrate then recorded the statements of the three brothers, mother and husband of Smt. Gurdav Kaur who all stated that Smt. Gurdev Kaur was leafing and immoral life. Smt. Gurdev Kaur's statement was then recorded and according to her she did not want ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1965P& H146; 1965CriLJ466
J.S. Bedi, J.1. These appeals (Criminal Appeals Nos. 398, 399 and 400 of 1961) arise against the orders of Shri B. L. Malhotra, Additional Sessions, Judge, Gurgaon dated the 20th April, 1961, by which he convicted the nine appellants, namely Tek Chand, Dev Nath, Hakam Chand, Jagatari Lal, Deep Singh, Mulkh Raj Premi, Anup Singh, Karan Singh and Rup Chand, all residents of New Township Faridabad, District Gurgaon, under section 332/149, 333/149 and 147, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to one year's, two years' and three months ' rigorous imprisonment under the respective counts. Mulkh Raj Premi was further convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under S. 302, Indian Penal Code. This appellant and Tek Chand were also convicted under S. 19(1) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment each. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Besides the nine appellants, 19 others were also convicted by the trial Judge under s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H532
Tek Chand, J. 1. This Civil Revision and five other cases, R. S. A. 146-D of 1961, R. S. A. 162-D of 1961, R. S. A. 163-D of 1961 R. S. A. 164-D of 1961 and R. S.A. 165-D of 1961, can conveniently be disposed of by one order as the question of law, which was referred by Khosla C. I. to a Division bench is the same. The relevant passage from the order of reference is, as under :'I, therefore, direct that quite apart from the fact that the plaintiffs could fall back upon the ordinary law in the present case a Division Bench should consider the point whether an auction purchaser of evacuee property, who has not yet obtained a sale certificate but to whom the occupier has attorned, can under the ordinary law maintain a suit for ejectment.'It was directed that this matter be placed before a larger Bench and if there were any other petitions of a similar type pending they may also be put up for hearing before the same Bench so that the counsel appearing in those petitions might have, if they...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H426; (1964)ILLJ669P& H
P.D. Sharma, J. 1. The Regional Director, Employses' State Insurance Corporation lodged the present petition under Section 75(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 thereinafter be referred to as the Act) in the Insurance court, Ambala against (1) Kasturi Lal Vinaik principal employer orMessrs Hind Timber Industries, Yamunanagar, and (2) MessrsHind Timber Industries, Yamunanagar, for the recovery orRs. 1,592/- in respect of employees' contribution for theperiod from 1st October, 1958, to 30th June, 1960. thepetitioner alleged that the respondents-did not pay employees'contribution on a sum of Rs. 63,713.33 nP. paid by themas wages to their employees during the above period medetails of their claim are given in schedule 'A'. The omissionof the respondents to make the payment is said to havebeen noticed on the inspection of their factory by the inspector on 26th August, 1960. 2. The respondents controverted the above allegations and added that the petitioner's claim was barred by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1966)IILLJ264P& H
P.D. Sharma, J.1. The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Amritsar, applied to the Collector, Amritsar, for realization of a sum of Rs. 2,927 as employer's special contribution as arrears of land revenue from A. L. Puri, manager, and one of the proprietors of the India Chemical Industries, Amritsar. Thereupon, the latter, under Section 75(1)(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), instituted the present petition in the Insurance Court, Amritsar, for an injunction restraining the Corporation from realizing the employer's special contribution for a period of more than one year from the date of the application to the Collector. The Corporation maintained that the employer's special contribution was recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 73D of the Act for which no period of limitation had been prescribed by law. The following issue was framed:Whether the amount relating to employer's special contribution is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H549; [1963]14STC559(P& H)
I.D. Dua, J. 1. These nine petitions (Civil Writs Nos. 1741, 1761, 1762, 206, 608, 1576, 1527, 1481 of 1962 and No. 17 of 1963) were heard together and may be disposed of by one judgment. Main arguments were addressed in Civil Writ No. 1741 of 1962. The only question which calls for determination by us relates to the vires of Section 5 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (Punjab Act No. XLVI of 1948).2. Here, I may briefly state the facts on which Civil Writ petition No. 1741 of 1962 is based. The petitioner-firm Messrs. Nabha Rice and Oil Mills. Nabha, a registered dealer under the E. P. General Sales Tax Act, claims to be a partnership firm carrying on the business of extracting oil from sarson and other oil seeds, for which purpose they have installed an oil mill. It sells sarson oil and other oils thus extracted from sarson and other oil seeds, acquired by them from third parties and is liable to pay sales tax on sales of oil. The oil seeds are also purchased through its commission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1963CriLJ586
Inder Dev Dua, J.1. The petitioners who are brothers have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to remove the names of the petitioners from Register No. 10, Police Act, on the following allegations.2. The father of the petitioners Dr. Faqir Singh was a retired Surgeon from Government service. The petitioners are joint and are also living together whereas their three other brothers are separate from them. S. Harcharanjit Singh elder brother of the petitioners is educated upto B. A. standard and is a member of the Gram Panchayat as also of Block Samiti. Another brother of theirs S. Narinjdarpal Singh is a Hawaldar in the Indian Army. The petitioners and their brothers own about 70 acres of land and another area of about 40 acres is mortgaged with them with possession. The two petitioners were liquor licensees up to 31-3-1962, having held such licences for nearly six years. Last year they paid a su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H338
P.C. Pandit, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal against the order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal, decreeing in part the plaintiffs' suit and granting them a decree for a declaration that the sale in suit shall not bind them except to the extent of Rs. 4,5257- only, on payment of which they would be entitled to claim joint possession of the house in dispute.2. On 8-12-1952 Chancier Parkash, defendant No. 1, sold the house in suit for Rs. 8,000/- by a registered deed to Ram Parkash, defendant No. 2. On the same day, he also executed a rent-note in favour of the vendee. Later on 2-8-1956 on the basis of this rent-note, Ram Parkash obtained an order from the Rent Controller for the ejectment of Chancier Parkash from the house in suit. In execution of this order, he applied for the delivery of possession. Thereupon, on 1-10-1956, Radhe Sham and others, plaintiffs 1 to 5, the sons, and shrimati Puma Devi, plaintiff No. 6, the wife of the vendor, brought the present suit for ...
Tag this Judgment!