Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1978]41STC381(P& H)
R.S. Narula, C.J.1. The parties to the suit, from which this revision has arisen, are the erstwhile partners of a firm. In the proceedings before the Commissioner, for taking accounts in pursuance of a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, no books of account were produced by the defendants. The local Commissioner submitted his report. In the course of objections against the report of the local Commissioner, the plaintiff sought to get certain documents produced from the sales tax authorities. When the official of the department appeared with the documents, a privilege in respect thereof was claimed against the production of the documents under Section 26 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The trial court having allowed the said privilege, the plaintiff has come up to this court in revision of that order. 2. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Act (which alone is relevant) is repr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1978CriLJ604
ORDERK.S. Tiwana, J.1. Tejinder Kaur petitioner has filed this application Under Section 482 of the Criminal P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the new Code) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders of the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Lothian dated April 25, 1975 dismissing her application for maintenance Under Section 125 of the new Code and also against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated May 28, 1976, dismissing her revision against the order of the Judicial Magistrate.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application Under Section 125 of the new Code in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate I Class Ludhiana, against Balbir Singh, respondent, stating that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The marriage was performed in Feb. 1967 at Ludhiana. After the marriage, she and the respondent lived as husband and wife at Shankar, Delhi, Ludhiana and other places. The respondent used to press upon her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1591
ORDERGurnam Singh, J.1. A case under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was registered at Patiala, against Shri Harbans Singh, Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, by Shri Gurdial Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, District Patiala on 10-8-1973 at 8 O'clock. On the same day Sh. Gurdial Singh, Deputy Supdt. of Police, made an application in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, requesting for the issuance of a search warrant under Section 96, Cr. P.C. 1898 (hereinafter referred to as old Code) for the search of the places mentioned in the petition. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, passed the following order on the same day:I have gone through the above report and I have heard the investigating officer and have perused the police file. I have reason to believe that Shri Harbans Singh accused will not produce the things and documents on a requisition under Section 94, Cr. P.C., so, search warra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1977)79PLR749
ORDER1. This is a defendants' petition for revision of the order of the Court of Shri B. R. Gupta, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Hissar, dated Nov. 18, 1974, reframing issue No. 4 so as to shift the burden of the issue from the plaintiff to the defendants and splitting up original issue No. 5 into issues No. 5--A and 5--B in order to retain the burden of issue No. 5--B in respect of some of the properties on the plaintiff (Properties mentioned in issue No. 5--B) and to shift the burden in respect of the other properties to the defendants which are covered by issue No. 5--A.2. The suit for partition was filed by Dharam Kishore against his real brothers Nawal Kishore, Kaushal, Kishore, Hari Kishore and Prem Kishore. All the above said five brothers are the sons of Tansukh Rai. They also have four sisters (four daughters of Tansukh Rai) who have been impleaded as pro forma defendants to the suit but are said to be not claiming any interest to the property of their deceased father. The defe...
Tag this Judgment!