Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1970]77ITR212(P& H)
Bal Raj Tuli, J. 1. The respondent, Shri Satya Paul Virmani, is a Hindu undivided family, which derives its income from various businessesbesides property and dividend on shares. It owns a flour mill at Amritsar known as Jawala Flour Mills, Amritsar, which was leased out to M/s. S. P. Virmani and Sons Ltd., Amritsar, on the terms and conditions contained in the lease deed dated January 10, 1947. For the assessment year 1955-56 the Income-tax Officer made the assessment of the respondent on November 21, 1955; in which the income from the lease of the flour mill was determined at Rs. 36,609.00 and was treated as income from business. This income, along with some other income from business, was adjusted against the loss from some other business and the net income after adjustment was determined at Rs. 26,198-00. For the assessment year 1957-58, the Income-tax Officer treated the lease money of the flour mill as income from other sources and not as income from business. The assessee (respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1970]77ITR76(P& H)
Mehar Singh, C.J. 1. This will dispose of Income-tax References Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of 1964, Kishore Chand-Ramji Das of Ludhiana v. Commissioner of Income-tax.2. The assessee-firm was a partnership constituted under the partnership deed of December 3, 1947, effective and operative from October 25, 1947, in the preamble of which the description of the partners given was '(1) Kishore Chand, (2) Ramji Das, (3) Dayal Chand, (4) Roshan Lal, (5) Mohinder Paul, Harish Chander and Romesh Chander, minor sons of Balbir Chand, through Kishore Chand, their uncle, (6) Surrender Kumar, minor son of Balbir, Chand, through Kaushalya Devi, his mother, and (7) Kaushalya Devi, wife of Balbir Chand.' So there were seven partners. The first four and the seventh partners were majors whereas the fifth partner consisted of three brothers, namely, Mohinder Paul, Harish Chander and Romesh Chander, minors, and the sixth partner, another minor. Surrender Kumar. The deed stated the shares of the partners as below :(1)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1970P& H507
ORDERShamsher Bahadur, J. 1. This is a writ petition of Jagir Singh, Chuhar Singh, Sit Singh, Santokh Singh and others under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for a declaration that the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 1st July, 1967 cancelling the sale of the disputed land in their favour is void and inoperative.2. The land in dispute measuring 14 standard acres 83/4 units in village Chathewala, tehsil and district Bhatinda was allotted to Khem Chand, the 4th repsondent in lieu of the land left by him in village Khambewala, tehsil and district Bahawalpur. A Sanad was granted to the 4th respondent on 30th November, 1962. The Managing Officer finding that the allotment was 'bogus' made an order 'of cancellation on 23rd July, 1964 (annexure A). In appeal preferred to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, the order of the Managing Officer was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh decision. Before this functionary, the counsel for the 4th respondent produced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1970)72PLR139
1. This is a plaintiffs' revision petition against the order dated 14th May, 1969, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Patiala, staying the proceedings initiated by them before the Rehabilitation authorities till the decision of their suit.2. Shrimati Bal Kaur sold the land in dispute to Munshi Ram and three others. Thereupon, her sons Jarnail Singh alias Angrez Singh and Balkar Singh brought a suit for possession of the said land on the ground that she was not the owner of the property which belonged to the plaintiffs.3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it was said that the Rehabilitation authorities had allotted the land in the name of Bal Kaur and also granted the sanad in her favour.4. Coming to know of this fact, the plaintiffs, during the pendency of he suit, applied to the Chief Commissioner, Rehabilitation Department, presumably under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, for the cancellation of the san...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1970P& H506
D.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding certain amount against the driver of the motor-cycle in an award made under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act No. 4 of 1939) --(hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. An application was made by the person who was injured In the accident to recover the amount allowed to him under the Award before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala. An objection was taken to this application by the driver of the motor-cycle, against whom the award had been made, that the award could not be executed; and in support of this objection, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Madras High Court in K. Gopala Krishnan v. Sankara Narayan, AIR 1968 Mad 436. This objection was overruled by the Tribunal on the short ground that the State Government had amended Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), whereby in Rule 20 of these Rules, O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1971CriLJ489
ORDER1. On an application made by Smt. Parsan Kaur, petitioner , against her husband, Bakhshish Singh, under Section 488, Criminal P.C., she and her minor son were granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per mensem by an order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala, dated the 1st October, 1966. The maintenance was, however, granted with effect from the date of the application, i.e., 23rd of March, 1966, Subsequently the petitioner applied to the Magistrate for realisation of the arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs.1,800/-. On service of notice upon him the respondent Bakhshish Singh, approached the Magistrate on 22nd of July, 1967, for setting aside the ex parte order of maintenance in exercise of his powers under Section 488(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application was contested inter alia on the plea that he was not duly served in the original proceedings and it was about a month back that he had learnt that such an order had been passed against him. in co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1970P& H205
ORDER1. This reference arises out of Civil Revision Application No. 82 of 1965 under Article 227 of the Constitution, and there are seven applicants out of whom there are five minors, applicants 3 to 7, whose case has been represented by their mother as their next friend and guardian. Mr. Harbans Singh Gujral was advocate for the applicants. This case had been pending for quite a long time. When it was set in the list for hearing on September 29, 1969, he moved an application on September 25, 1969, that for reasons stated in the application he was not in a position to continue as a counsel for the applicants and wanted an order from the Court permitting him to withdraw from the case. His application was allowed on September 26, 1969. When the case came up for hearing on September 29, 1969, a relation of Pritam Devi, applicant 1, mother of the minor applicants, appeared and said that Pritam Devi, applicant 1, was ill and he wanted an adjournment for the case to be argued because his cou...
Tag this Judgment!