Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : I(1994)DMC497; (1994)108PLR312
G.C. Garg, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated January 13, 1992 whereby a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant-husband has been dismissed.2. The case as set up by the appellant in the petition is as under :The parties were married at Hoshiarpur on October 14, 1988. On the very first night at about 10.30 p.m. the young couple went to their bed on the second floor of their house, but the respondent came running to the ground floor and expressed her desire to sleep in a separate room. The appellant noticed abnormality in her behaviour and temperament, She used to be extremely happy at one time and depressed the next moment without any reason. Two days after the marriage, the couple was travelling in a bus for going to Sukhna Lake when the respondent jumped out of the bus when it was in motion. In February, 1989 the respondent told the appellant that she was against her marriage but her parents had forcibly married her off. The respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1994P& H161
ORDER1. This order shall dispose of two Civil'Misc. Applications Nos. 20-E and 21-E of 1993, as common question of law and fact is involved in both these applications.2. Elections to Punjab Assembly were held on 19-2-1992. Petitioner contested the said election as a candidate of Akali Dal (Kabul) and respondent No. 1 Shri Harcha-ran Singh Brar, the returned candidate(hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1) as Congree (I) party candidate. Respondent No. 1 secured 21600 votes and was declared elected from 105-Muktsar Assembly Constituency by tbe Returning Officer. Petitioner secured 15323 votes. There were other candidates also in the fray.3. Petitioner filed the present election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 1 inter alia on the ground that nomination papers of respondent No. 1 were filed after 3 p.m. on 1-2-1992 which was the last date of filing of the nomination papers and, therefore, could not be accepted. On a protest raised by the petitioner, he was arrest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1996]86CompCas450(P& H)
G.S. Chahal, J.1. The petitioners seek quashing of the complaint dated August 29, 1991, filed by the respondent against him for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'), the summoning order issued by the court and all consequent proceedings.2. The prosecution was launched by the respondent on the ground that the respondent had supplied to the petitioner shuttering plywood valued at Rs. 2,28,300 during the period August 3, 1989, to October 3, 1989, vide various bills. The petitioner paid Rs. 20,000 by way of a cheque dated November 17, 1989, but withheld the balance amount. Ultimately, on issuing two cheques in favour of the respondent and on presentation one of the cheques was honoured on June 15, 1991, but the second cheque amounting to Rs. 98,050 was dishonoured with the remarks 'refer to drawer'. On receipt of intimation of this memo of dishonour, the respondent issued a notice and the notice sent at the Delhi address was duly delive...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1994CriLJ1679
ORDERS.S. Grewal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dated 9th September, 1986, whereby Devinder Kapoor Singh and Smt. Murti were convicted under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Smt. Murti was released on probation of good conduct for a period of three years on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount, whereas, Devinder and Kapoor Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - each under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine they were, ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both of them were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they, were ordered to undergo further rigourous imprisonment for 2 1/2 years each. The substantive ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1993)104PLR671
G.C. Garg, J.1. M/s. Sagar and Company represented by Saggar Singh, Gurpal Singh and Khushpal Singh through their General Attorney Smt Baldev Kaur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the original landlord') filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for jshort the Act) for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises. During the pendency of the Petition the original landlord transferred the property under the tenancy of the petitioner in favour of Nasib Kaur, Harjinder Kaur and Surmder Kaur, who are none else but the wives of the onginal landlords. On transfer of the tenanted premises, the tenant- petitioner, getting an occassion to save itself fom the clutches of the ejectment petition, moved an application for dismissal of the said petition, alleging 'that after the transfer of the property under its tenancy in favour of the aforesaid three ladies the original landlords were no more the landlord qua it. Surprfisingly, the original landlords ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1993)105PLR424
S.K. Jain, J.1. Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter referred to 'HUF') comprised of Janak Raj Malik as its Karta and his wife Smt. Sudarshan Malik and three sons namely, Inder Raj Malik, Sanjiv Kumar and Anil Kumar Malik (a minor, date of birth being 20-03-1960) as its members were assessed to Income Tax. It committed default in making payment of tax for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1971-72 and 1973-74. The Income Tax Officer in exercise of his power under Section 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 forwarded to the Tax Recovery Officer a certificate dated 25.3.1975 under his signatures specifying the amount of arrears due from the above said assessee. The Tax Recovery Officer on receipt of such certificate proceeded under the said Section to recover from said assessee the amount specified therein by attachment and sale of the assessee's immovable property namely, Eros Cinema, subsequently named as Jay Cinema, alongwith land appurtent thereto, situated in Khasra No. 571,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1994)106PLR444
G.C. Garg, J.1. Petitioner Amar Vivek in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as a public interest litigation, has challenged the vires of the East Punjab Moveable Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') on various grounds as detailed in the petition. A prayer has also been made in the petition that the respondents be directed not to requisition the private vehicles belonging to the members of public.2. Respondent - State of Punjab has filed written statement wherein requisitioning of private vehicles of the members of the public has not been denied. It is rather admitted therein that vehicles were requisitioned in accordance with law for urgent duties of the security personnels by the competent authorities. A further stand was taken in the written statement that the provisions of the aforesaid Act is a valid piece of legislation and is not hit by any provisions of the Constitution of India.3. At the time of hearing, the petitioner straightawa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1994)108PLR668
V.K. Jhanji, J.1. This will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 5405 of 1986 as well as No. 3943 of 1986 as common question of law is involved therein.2. The facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 5405 of 1986.3. According to the petitioners, the State of Haryana issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) On 11.3.1981 expressing its intention to acquire land for the purpose of development and utilisation of land for residential and commercial purposes for Sectors 5 and 7 in the area of village Devidaspura, Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra. This was followed by another notification dated 11.12.1983 under Section 6 of the Act. In the writ petition, notification under Section 4 of the Act is challenged on the grounds:-(i) that the State of Haryana cannot be allowed to freeze the price of the locality by keeping the notification under Section 4 of the Act alive by issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act just before ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1994)119CTR(P& H)10; [1994]208ITR486(P& H)
S. K. JAIN J. - A Hindu undivided family comprised of Janak Raj Malik as its karta and his wife, Smt. Sudershan Malik, and three sons, namely, Inder Raj Malik, Sanjiv Kumar and Anil Kumar Malik (a minor, date of birth being March 20, 1960), as its members were assessed to income-tax. It committed a default in making payment of tax for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1971-72 and 1973-74. The Income-tax Officer in exercise of his power under section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, forwarded to the Tax Recovery Officer a certificate dated March 25, 1975, under his signature specifying the amount of arrears due from the above-said assessee. The Tax Recovery Officer on receipt of such certificate proceeded under the said section to recover from the said assessee the amount specified therein by attachment and sale of the assessees immovable property, namely, Eros Cinema, subsequently named as Jay Cinema, along with land appurtenant thereto, situated in khasra No. 571, Old Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1994]210ITR468(P& H)
1. The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of initiating proceedings by issuance of notice dated February 26, 1993, under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), requiring the petitioner to get a special audit of its accounts conducted for the assessment year 1990-91. The challenge is on the ground that the accounts of the petitioner have already been audited being a limited company and the Assessing Officer erred in passing the order under Section 142(2A) of the Act requiring the petitioner to get a special audit. The plea taken is without any merit. A reading of the language of Section 142(2A) of the Act makes it clear that in case the Assessing Officer at any stage of the proceedings before him, having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interests of the Revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner/Commissioner, he may ...
Tag this Judgment!