Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H297; [1977]40STC370(P& H)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. These cases raise common questions and may be disposed of by one judgment. The petitioners are licencees, having the right to vend country liquor, under the Punjab Excise Act and the Punjab Excise Rules. They object to the imposition of tax on the sale of country liquor by various Panchayat Samitis in the State of Punjab. They question the demands made on them for payment of the tax.2. The principal submission of Shri H.L. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioners, was that the notifications issued by the Government of Punjab under Section 67 (5) of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act notifying the imposition of tax on the sale of country liquor by Panchayat Samitis were contrary to the express provisions of Section 6 read with Entry 37 of Schedule B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the legislative policy underlying them. Shri Sibal urged that there was a legislative injunction, in Section 6, that no tax shall be payable on the sale of g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H214
Harbans Lal, J.1. These three appeals, F.A.Os, Nos. 47, 84 and 114 of 1972, are before us for determination of two points of law on a reference from Tewatia, J., (as he then was) vide his order of March 13, 1975, and shall be disposed of by one judgment as all these three appeals were filed against the decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal), dated November 6, 1971.2. Shri Om Parkash Sharma, deceased, was returning from Fatehabad to Tohana on a motor-cycle driven by Surat Singh on January 28, 1969, at 7-30 P.M. At a distance of about three miles from Bhuna on Bhuna Fatehabad Road, a truck No. HRH-9071, driven by Sher Singh and owned by Jokhi Ram came rashly and negligently from the opposite side and dashed into the motor-cycle resulting into the death of Om Parkash Sharma and Surat Singh. First information report regarding this incident was lodged in the Police Station, Bhuna. Shrimati Naresh Kanta, wife of Om Parkash Sharma (deceased) and Ms f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H312
Gurnam Singh, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment of Rajendra Nath Mittal, J., vide which the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Bharat Timber Store, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak, respondent No. 1 had filed a suit against Raghubir Singh, respondent No. 2 and the Senior Sub-Judge, Rohtak decreed that suit for the yeum of Rs. 2,602,75 Ps. on 19-8-1963.During the pendency of the suit, the Senior Sub-Judge had sent an intimation to the Sub-Divisional Officer, P.W.D., B. & R. Bhiwani, that the amount lying with him and payable to Raghubir Singh contractor, shall not be paid to him, till further orders of the Court. On the request of the decree-holder, the papers for the recovery of the decretal amount were sent to the Addl. District Judge, Hissar, who entrusted the same to the Senior Sub-Judge, Hissar for necessary proceedings. The Senior Sub-Judge, Hissar, dismissed the execution application in defau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H221
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. These writ petitions represent, perhaps, the final desperate attempt to stand up against the avalanche of land reforms initiated pursuant to the Directive Principles of State Policy. In these writ petitions, the vires of some of the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1972 (Act XXVI of 1972) is in question. The Act received the assent of the President on 22-12-1972 and was published in the Official Gazette on 23-12-1972. The Act was included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution on 7-9-1974, and, thereby, it came under the protective umbrella of Article 31B of the Constitution and became immune from attack on the ground of inconsistency with or abridgement of any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. However, on 9-9-1974, in Saroj Kumari v. State of Haryana, 1975 Pun LR 407 : (AIR 1975 Punj 353) a Division Bench of this Court, who apparently were unaware of the inclusion of the Act in the Ninth Schedule, s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1424
S.S. Sandhawalia, J.1. Whether the inevitable delay in the hearing of the appeals in life sentence cases within this Court is by itself a factor to be taken into account for the grant of bail to the convicts is the slightly interesting question which has arisen for consideration in this application for bail moved on behalf of Sucha Singh and Jit Singh appellants,2. As many as 11 accused persons including the two petitioners herein were brought to trial before the Court of Session, at Patiala on charges of murder and other allied offences. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated the 22nd April. 1975, acquitted three of the co-accused but convicted the remaining eight. All the convicts, however, were acquitted of the charge Under Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, but were held guilty Under Section 364/149, Indian Penal Code only, The two petitioners along with three co-accused stand sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment each on the ground of their r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1977)79PLR405
ORDER1. The order of Mrs. Sudarshan Modi, Subordinate Judge, First Class, Jullundur, dated May 7, 1976, fixing the maintenance allowance of the petitioner at Rs. 30 per mensem and litigation expenses payable to her at Rs. 125 under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is set aside on the short ground that the order is not supported by any reasons. She has not referred to any affidavit or counter-affidavit of the parties, nor has she stated that she believes or disbelieves or partially believes or disbelieves any of the affidavits or any evidence led by the parties. An order of this type, which does not contain either the facts or the grounds on which it is based is no order in the eye of law.2. I, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the order of the trial Court and direct it to redecide the application of the petitioner under S. 24 of the Act in accordance with law. Further proceedings in the main case shall remain stayed in the trial Court till the application of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H311
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act for confirmation of the decree nisi granted by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, for dissolution of marriage. The wife applied for divorce on the ground that her husband was living in adultery with one Miss C. Hughes at Delhi, where he was working. The wife, who was also at Delhi previously, was transferred to Chandigarh in January, 1968. Her husband used to visit her occasionally. He started reducing his visits from 1971 onwards and from January, 1972, he altogether stopped visiting her. She went to Delhi three or four times and found that the husband was living with Miss C. Hughes. He told her that he was staying as her paying guest. When the wife asked if she could stay with him for some days, he refused. On one occasion when she paid a surprise visit, she found in her husband's bed room one bed with two pillows and the belongings of a lady. The husband remained ex parte before the District...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H383
ORDERR.S. Narula, J.1. This is a petition for revision of the order of the Court of Shri Baldev Singh, Subordinate Judge First Class, Jullundur, dated Sept. 9. 1976, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act) allowing the petitioner a sum of Rs. 80 as litigation expenses and Rs. 50 per mensem as maintenance pendente lite during the pendency of the respondent's petition under Section 9 of the Act. The learned counsel for the husband raises a preliminary objection to the effect that the order passed by the trial Court under Section 24 of the Act is appealable under Section 28 thereof, and, therefore the revision petition cannot be entertained. There is no doubt that Section 28 of the original Act provided that all decrees or orders passed by the Court in any proceeding under the Act would be appealable but by Section 19 of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, the following section has been substituted in place of original Section 28:--'(1) Al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H335
Surinder Singh, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 1457 and 1458 of 1963, which arise out of two separate suits filed by the two brothers of Maharaja Sir Pratap Singh (since deceased), the then Ruler of the princely State of Nabha, which now forms a part of Punjab. On July 13, 1960, Maharaj Kumar Kharagh Singh (who has also died during the pendency of his appeal) filed Civil Suit No. 40 for possession of land known as 'Bir Ranadhai', situated in village Agaul, Tahsil Nabha, District Patiala. His brother, Maharaj Kumar Gurbax Singh, filed a similar Civil Suit No. 41 on the same day. Both these suits were tried independently by Subordinate Judge First Class, Patiala, and the claim of the plaintiffs was decreed. The State of Punjab went up in appeal before the District Judge, Patiala, who, though by means of separate judgments, but on absolutely identical considerations, accepted the appeals and dismissed the plaintiffs' suits. The two plaintiffs in the third ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1416
Harbans Lal, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 482, Cr. P. C., (hereinafter called the Code) for quashing the proceedings initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner Under Sections 420 and 406, Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana.2. A complaint, Under Sections 420 and 406, I. P. C. was filed by the respondent against the petitioner on November 1, 1975, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana, in which after recording the preliminary evidence, the petitioner was summoned Under Sections 420 and 406, Indian Penal Code. An application was made by the petitioner Under Section 245 of the Code, for dropping the proceedings against him. The said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by his order dated July 8, 1976 and a copy of the same is Annexure P. 5 to the petition. According to the averments in the complaint, the father of the complain-an., respondent, Sh...
Tag this Judgment!