Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1976P& H30
Tuli, J 1. This judgment will dispose of 217 Writ Petitions Nos. 4794, 4943, 4944, 5739, 5754, 5768, 5769, 5773, 5833, 5849 to 5857, 5866, 5899 to 5904, 5922, 5929 to 5932, 5934 to 5936, 5967, 6065 to 6078, 6080 to 6085, 6087 to 6092, 6121 to 6134, 6137, 6138, 6140 to 6141, 6173 to 6179, 6182 to 6190, 6193 to 6196. 6198, 6199, 6201 to 6203, 6205, 6206, 6308 to 6315, 6317 to 6324, 6326 to 6330, 6382 to 6385, 6418 to 6423, 6465A, 6484 to 6486, 6411 to 6492, 6495, 6496, 6498 to 6501, 6507, 6509 to 6512, 6514 to 6516, 6630, 6635, 6636, 6638 to 6642, 6644, 6685 to 6687, 6689, 6693, 6697 to 6699, 6701, 6703 to 6706, 6712, 6714 to 6716, 6718, 6719, 6739, 6743 to 6745, 6755, 6757 6758, 6900, 6902 to 6905, 6907 to 6914 and 6917 to 6919 of 1974 as common questions of law and fact are involved.2. The brief facts are that the petitioners woe employees of the Haryana State Electricity Board, either temporary or substantive, and in pursuance of the call of the Union they went on strike with effect f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1976P&H143
Man Mohan Singh Gujral, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 5948, 6115, 6736, 6779 and 6780 of 1974, as the spinal issue that arises for decision in these petitions is common to all. In all these petitions, the respondents are the Panjab University, Chandigarh, and its Vice-Chancellor excepting Civil Writ Petition No. 6736 of 1974 where the second respondent is the Principal, Medical College, Patiala. 2. In Civil writ petition No. 6115 of 1974 the petitioner, Kashmir Singh Sandhu, appeared for the B. Ed. examination held by the Punjab University in April, 1974, and when the result of the examination was declared, the petitioner's result was withheld and by letter dated the 19th July, 1974. he was informed that an inquiry for the violation of Regulation 7 of the Punjab University Calendar 1973, Volume II, would be held as there were allegations of the petitioner having copied from a common or identical source in the subject of Educational Psychology including E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1976CriLJ656
ORDERGurnam Singh, J.1. Mewa Singh alias Manjit Singh was committed to the Court of Session by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla, to stand his trial under Sections 409, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code, vide his order dated 26-12-1973, with a direction to him to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 15-1-1974. The accused appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 15-1-1974 and the case was adjourned to 23-1-1974. The case remained pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but he, on 21-9-1974, sent the record of the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, along with the charge and the evidence already recorded by him, under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 (hereinafter called the new Code). The accused was directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, on 7-10-1974, for trial.2. The State of Punjab has filed this revision petition No, 86 of 1975 against the order of the learned Additional Sessions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1975P& H382
ORDERAjit Singh Bains, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a resident of village Ram Nagar alias Kasaiwala, Police Station Maur, tahsil and district Bhatinda, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for directing the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from Register No. X or any other register maintained for entering the names of bad characters in the Police Station Maur and further restraining the respondents from demanding a photograph of the petitioner or calling him in the police station.2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was sentenced in the year 1948 to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and on the basis of this conviction, his name was entered in the surveillance register Part II in the Police Station Maur under Rule 23.4 of the Punjab Police Rules. This entry was cancelled on 1st May, 1956, by the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petitioner was subsequently tried under Section 307 of the Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1976]102ITR812(P& H)
Bal Raj Tuli, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court on November 15, 1973, and was referred to a larger Bench of atleast five judges to decide the following points of law, which, the learned judges thought, raised very important and fundamental questions :'(1) Whether the rate of wealth-tax imposed on urban immovable property is of a confiscatory nature and (2) Whether the penalty provisions as embodied in Section 18 of Wealth-tax Act, are also confiscatory in nature ?' 2. Another contention that had been raised in the writ petition was that no wealth-tax could be imposed on agricultural land. That matter stands concluded by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon : [1972]83ITR582(SC) and, therefore, was not referred to the larger Bench. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed question No. 2 mentioned above before us and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(P& H)0064B
Bal Raj Tuli, J. - This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on November 15, 1973, and was referred to a large Bench of at least five Judges to decide the following points of law, which the learned Judges thought, raised very important and fundamental questions :-(1) Whether the rate of wealth tax imposed on urban immovable property is of a confiscatory nature; and(2) Whether the penalty provisions as embodied in Section 18 of the Wealth Tax Act are also confiscatory in nature ?Another contention that had been raised in the writ petition was that no wealth-tax could be imported on agricultural land. That matter stands concluded by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs . Harbhajan Singh : [1972]83ITR582(SC) and therefore, was not referred to the larger Bench. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed question No. 2 mentioned above before us and has confi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1975P& H236
Bal Raj Tuli, J.1. These four writ petitions (Nos. 2980, 3069, 3565 and 4004 of 1972) were admitted to a Division Bench and came up for hearing before P. C. Pundit and B. S. Dhillon, JJ. The learncd Judges have, referred the following questions of law for decision to a larger Bench by order dated February 8, 1973 :--1. Whether the rules of natural justice require that before cancelling the liquor licence of an excise licensee under Section 36 (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, a notice for an oral hearing must necessarily be given to him?2. Whether the rules of natural justice require that before the security of a licensee is forfeited, he must be given a notice for oral hearing against such forfeiture or whether Ihe necessary result of the cancellation of the licence was automatic forfeiture of the security and, no such notice was essential?3. Whether Section 36 fc) read with Sections 40 and 80 of the Punjab Excise Act was ultra vires the Constitution of India, being violative of Articles ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1976]103ITR208(P& H)
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. 1. This order will dispose of Income-tax References Nos. 23 and 24 of 1973. 2. The facts are that M/s. Patiala Biscuit . (now known as 'Dalmia Biscuit Private Ltd.') (hereinafter referred to as 'the Patiala Biscuit Company') derives income from the manufacture and sate of biscuits, confectionary and bread. The assessment year involved is 1967-68, for which the accounting period is the year ending December 31, 1966. A meeting of the board of directors took place on December 29, 1965, in which Mr. P.S. Narayanaswamy informed the board that several new biscuit factories had been established in the country and, as a result thereof, there was every likelihood of unhealthy competition between the manufacturers. He had discussed the matter with Mr. Ram Krishna Dalmia of New Delhi, who was agreeable to purchase the entire products of the company as its principal purchaser. He would dispose of the products at the rates fixed by the company from time to time. The work wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1975P& H343
Tuli, J. 1. This order will dispose of 21 writ petitions (Nos. 87, 125, 155, 161, 191, 194, 225, 247, 251, 282, 303, 304, 307, 312, 327, 357, 408, 424, 471, 488 and 646 of 1975), as they challenge the validity and constitutionality of certain provisions of the Punjab Betterment Charges and Acreage Rates Act, 1952. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder, as are applicable to the State of Haryana. The Act received the assent of the Governor of Punjab on January 5, 1953, and was published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dated January 21, 1953, and came into force in the territories comprised in the then State of Punjab on that date. The Patiala and East Punjab States Union also enacted the Pepsu Betterment Charges and Acreage Rates Act, 1954. which was in force in the territories of that State when the merger of the two States of Punjab and Pepsu took place with effect from November 1, 1956. Thereafter, it was considered desirable that in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1977CriLJ57
ORDERS.S. Sidhu, J.1. Bagh Singh was convicted under Section 354, I.P.C. on 29th April, 1974, and was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment on 28th May. 1974 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muktsar (Shri Manmohan Singh Ahluwalia). He preferred an appeal against the said conviction and sentence, but the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide his judgment dated 5th March, 1975, by holding that the convict, as found by the trial Court, did not deserve to be dealt with under Section 4 read with Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Bagh Singh has now come up to this Court in revision against his conviction and sentence.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 8th November, 1973 at about sunset, Mst. Marro (P, W. 1), a Harijan lady, aged about 40 years, was returning from the fields with a bundle of green fodder on her head. When she came near an uninhabited room of Dharam Singh, Bagh Singh...
Tag this Judgment!