Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1976CriLJ1136
Man Mohan Singh Gujral, J.1. Dalip Kaur, wife of Hardeep Singh, respondent, and their two sons, Balbir Singh and Kartar Singh, filed an application under Section 488, Criminal P. C., 1898, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Barnala, claiming maintenance on the ground that the respondent had refused to fulfil his obligation to maintain them. The application was contested by Hardeep Singh on the plea that Dalip Kaur had left his company without any justification and that he had never refused to maintain the applicants. On coming to the conclusion that the applicants had failed to establish refusal or neglect on the part of the respondent, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application by order dated August 7, 1969. Being aggrieved, the applicants filed revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge, which was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated November 24, 1970. By this order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made a refe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1976P& H180
Bhupinder Singh Dhillon, J.1. This First Appeal from Order is directed against the unanimous order dated February 23, 1965, passed by the Sikh Gurdware Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), non-suiting the appellant on a finding that the appellant has no locus standi to bring the petition under Section 8 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This appeal was listed for hearing before a Division Bench and the two learned Judges constituting the Bench having taken different views while deciding the appeal, the appeal was referred by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice to R. S. Narula, J. (now Hon'ble Chief Justice), for decision under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Clause 26 of the Letters Patent of this Court. However, the learned Judge felt embarrassed to hear and re-decide the appeal on a difference of opinion between the two Judges as one of the learned Judges of the Division Bench doubted the correctness of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1976P& H67
ORDERPrem Chand Jain, J.1. The facts, as given in the petition, may briefly be stated thus:2. The petitioners, who have more than one year's experience as qualified Sanitary Inspectors and have received more than three months' training in Food Inspection and Sampling Work in the recognised laboratories, are working as Sanitary Inspectors and are posted as such at different places in the State of Haryana. It is alleged that the Haryana Government advertised one post of Government Food Inspector in the Health Department in the pay scale of Rs. 140-350 and, according to the advertisement (annexure 'A' to the petition), only those Sanitary Inspectors who were graduates, had experience of one year and had received at least three months' training in Food Inspection and Sampling Work in any of the laboratories mentioned under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), were eligible for appointment to the post of Food Inspector. The petitioners, who are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1982]136ITR366(P& H)
Sandhawalia, J.1. This set of income-tax references at the instance of both the revenue and the assessee raises certain interesting questions of interpretation. As common questions of law and fact arise, I propose to dispose of them by this single judgment.2. These references pertain to two assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 of the assessee, M/s. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., Yamunanagar, for which the respective accounting periods ended on the 31st of August 1963, and the 31st of August, 1964. In the relevant statements of the case, as many as nine questions in all have been framed, but I propose to deviate from the serial order therein and first take up the two questions at the instance of the revenue.3. M/s. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. is a company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar and machinery for sugar mills and other industries. During July, 1963, its managing director visited Japan in connection with the company's business. A deduction o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1976P& H21
ORDERR.S. Narula, C.J.1. This is a petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949) (hereinafter called the Act) for revision of the order of the Appellate Authority, Ferozepore, dated January 3, 1974, upholding the decision of the Rent Controller for the eviction of the tenant-petitioner under Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Act, that is on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The only around pressed by Mr. Harbans Lal Sarin, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, for petting aside the decision of the Courts below is that out of the three statutory conditions precedent entitling a landlord to apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession specified in Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Act, namely :--(a) he requires it for his own occupation; (b) he is not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned; and (c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause aft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1976P& H112
M.R. Sharma, J.1. Sub tehsil Amloh was a part of tehsil Sirhind of district Patiala. Later on, it was transferred to tehsil Nabha of the same district. Notification regarding demarcation of the Sabha areas under Section 4 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act), had been issued in respect of the Gram Panchayats of Amloh sub-tehsil when it was a part of tehsil Sirhind. Fresh elections to the Gram Panchayat, Lallon Khurd, were challenged in this petition, which came up before me in the Chambers, on the ground that the name of this Gram Sabha was not mentioned in the notification regarding the constitution of Gram Sabhas in tehsil Nabha. It was submitted that before elections could be held, a notification under Section 4 of the Act demarcating the Sabha area had to be issued. Reliance in this connection was placed on a judgment rendered by my learned brother C.G. Suri, J. in Balwant Singh etc. v. The State of Punjab etc., 1973 Cur LJ 238. On behalf of the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1976P& H355
Ajit Singh Bains, J.1. The parties to the present appeal, who are Brahmins, were married on 13th February, 1960, at Amritsar. Due to unfortunate circumstances, the parties did not lead a harmonious married life and frustrated by the extremely unhappy situation, the appellant made an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter briefly called 'the Act') on 11th July, 1961, before the trial Court for annulment of the marriage on the ground that his wife Shrimati Radha respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceedings. Various other pleas were also taken in the petition. It was also mentioned in the petition that his wife Shrimati Radha had an innate aversion and invincible repugnance to sexual intercourse. Shrimati Radha denied the allegations in her written statement and categorically asserted that she was capable of sexual intercourse and that actually she and her husband were leading good se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1976P& H22
Narula, C.J. 1. The under mentioned history of this case which has led to the filing of the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant on the short ground that it involved disputed questions of fact and a dispute regarding limitation unfortunately reveals that even after the independence of the country and the establishment of a socialistic welfare State committed to the rule of law, some Government agencies continue to have a bureaucratic outlook, and their conscience is not pricked by mercilessly trampling over the legal rights of the citizens and then trying to outwit them by defenceless defences.2. Possession of the land belonging to the appellant was taken over by the Punjab Government through the Engineer of the Aerodrome at Patiala in 1935 for State purposes. Proceedings for determining compensation payable for the acquisition of land were started, but some years ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1976]102ITR40(P& H)
M.R. Sharma, J.1. After India attained independence on August 15, 1947, the erstwhile Princely States of Patiala, Kapurthala, Jind, Malerkotla, Nabha, Faridkot, Kalsia and Nalagarh entered into a covenant with the Union of India and formed a State commonly known as the Patiala and East Punjab States Union. The then His Highness the Maharaja of Patiala, by common agreement, was appointed as the Raj Pramukh of the State. The ruling Princes of the covenanting States surrendered their sovereignty, the State properties and the territories forming their respective States. The Government of India, in turn, agreed to pay privy purses to the ruling Princes and allowances to their dependants or their relations. The Ruler of the erstwhile State of Patiala, pursuant to this agreement, was informed by letter dated April 2, 1949, by the Ministry of States, Government of India, regarding its decision with regard to the privy purse allowance admissible to him as Raj Pramukh and allowances for Rajmatas...
Tag this Judgment!