Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1997P& H282; (1997)117PLR29
ORDER1. This application has been filed by respondent under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the ex parte order dated 13-2-1996 passed by this Court. In this application it has been stated that the notice of the revision petition was never served upon respondent No. 1 (applicant) who is the illiterate widow lady and is the only contesting respondent.2. Notice of this application was issued to the petitioner/non-applicant. Reply to this application by way of affidavit has been filed on behalf of the non-applicant. In para-2 of the reply, it has been stated that applicant Ranjit Kaur was duly served in the revision petition as she refused to accept the summons and avoided the service.3. Mr. Sanghi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that as per report of the process-server, the applicant was avoiding service and as such the applicant should have been served in terms of Order 5, Rule 20 and she could not have been proceeded ex parte. 4. Mr. Pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)116PLR600
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. The petitioner who has already retired as a lecturer from the Government Senior Secondary School, Ludhiana had undergone the Coronary Bypass Surgery at the Escorts Hospital on May 21, 1991. He had paid a total amount of Rs. 1,24,900/-. He requested the department to reimburse the expenses. Having failed to get his money, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with a prayer for the issue of a mandamus directing the respondents to release the payment 'with 18% compound interest'.2. The respondents have not filed any written statement. They have not controverted the factual position. The only contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner should be paid the expenses that he would have incurred if he had been admitted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.Counsel for the parties have been heard.3. Admittedly, the petitioner had undergone the Surgery in May 1991. A period of six years has elapsed since then. It is not the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)142CTR(P& H)439
ASHOK BHAN, J. :Asstt. CGT, Investigation Circle, Panipat (wrongly mentioned as CIT, Haryana, Rohtak) has filed this petition under s. 26(3) of the GT Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for issuance of a mandamus directing the Tribunal, Delhi Bench B, New Delhi, to refer the following question of law to this Court for its opinion, on the ground that the same arises from the order of the Tribunal :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is right in law in holding that assessees share in the goodwill was Rs. 40,000 instead of Rs. 4,54,000 by overlooking the facts and bypassing the earlier order dt. 30th April, 1985 passed by the Tribunal setting aside the CEDs order which is still pending and the value of the goodwill surrendered by the deceased Smt. Raj Devi is to be determined afresh ?'2. Raj Devi was partner in the firm M/s Mahajan Overseas, Panipat. She voluntarily retired from the firm on 18th September, 1979 and, thereafter, die...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)147CTR(P& H)399
ASHOK BHAN, J. :CIT has filed this petition under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for issuance of a mandamus directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) to refer the following questions of law along with the statement of the case to this Court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the interest charged under s. 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'This order shall dispose of IT Cases Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of 1990 as identical questions of law and fact are involved in all these cases. Facts are being taken from the asst. yr. 1985-86.2. Respondent-assessee (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) is a registered firm deriving its income from purchase and sale of auto vehicles. It took on rent premises No. 40 G.T. Road, Jalandhar on a monthly rent of Rs. 12,500 from Sarvshri Sadhu Singh, Kashmir Singh, Balwant Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1998]233ITR482(P& H)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, has filed this appeal under Section 269H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred 'to as 'the Act'), against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, dated November 26, 1987, whereby the appeal filed by the transferee against the acquisition order passed by the competent authority has been set aside.2. Two transferors, namely, Rupinder Kaur, wife of Gurbir Inder Singh, and Gurbir Inder Singh son of Suchet Singh, sold their agricultural land measuring 86 kanals 6 marlas situated at Village Sultanpur and a farm house thereon along with fruit trees to United Farms, Village Sultanpur, Tehsil Kharar, for a consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as 'the competent authority'), after issuing notice to the transferors and the transferee initiated the proceedings for acquiring the land under Chapte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR619
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. The dispute is regarding the estate of Bishan Singh who bad died leaving behind 57 Bighas and 9 Biswas of land, He was initially married to Smt. Har kaur. Three sons, viz. Sadhu Singh, Darshan Singh and Kesar Singh were born out of his wedlock. After the death of Har Kaur, Bishan Singh had got married to Smt. Kartar Kaur. Four sons were born out of this wedlock. On January 31, 1967, Bishan Singh passed away. The two sons and the legal representatives of the third son Kesar Singh-the offspring of Bishan Singh through his first wife-Har Kaur - filed a suit? or 3/8th share of the lard left behind by their father. Kartar Kaur, the second wife the four sons born through her were impleaded as the defendants. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the defendants had forcibly taken possession of the suit land on the basis of will which was a forged document.2. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs and pleaded that Bishan Singh had only one wife, namely, Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)118PLR309
S.C. Malte, J.1. This writ petition has arisen out of proceedings Under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter briefly referred as the Act): The Gram Panchayat filed an application against the petitioner, and contended that he has encroached upon a portion of the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner raised the contention that the area which is said to have been encroached by him, belongs to him. Thus the question of title arose. The papers before me indicate that the parties were allowed to lead evidence. The Assistant Collector, before whom the case was taken up at the trial stage, found that the boundaries as shown in the sale deed produced by the present petitioner to establish his ownership, do not tally with the area which is stated to have been encroached. In order to arrive at that conclusion he considered the report of the Local Commissioner Vis-a-vis the boundaries given in the sale deeds produced by the petitioner in s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : II(1998)DMC209
H.S. Bedi, J.1. Mahabir Singh the present appellant was married to the respondent on 27th May, 1984. From the averments made in the petition, the respondent Nirmala Devi stayed with her husband for only 5/6 days after marriage and even during that period her behaviour was not co-operative and she often insulted him in the presence of her family members and friends. It is further stated that after a period of 5/6 days the respondent left her matrimonial home and refused to come back despite the efforts having been made by the elders in the family and also by the village Panchayat. Divorce was thereafter sought on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The respondent controverted the allegations of desertion and admitted the factum of marriage. She also admitted that no child had been born out ofthewed-lock. She also pleaded that she had stayed with the appellant for six days on the first occasion and thereafter for a similar period in 1984. It has further been stated by her that the relat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : II(1998)DMC670
V.K. Jhanji, J.1. This is husband's appeal directed against judgment of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the petition filed by him under Section 13(l-a)(l-b) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage has been dismissed.2. Appellant filed petition for divorce against his wife, Balwant Kaur, with whom he had got married on 3.7.1983, by alleging that while pregnant, she deserted him on 2.1.1984 with the intention not to return to the matrimonial home. He alleged that she got the pregnancy terminated before maturity which caused mental shock to him. He alleged that during the time respondent had been staying with him, her behaviour was rude and insulting. He alleged that she created ugly scenes which resulted in lowering his prestige. He alleged that he had legitimate apprehension in his mind that it would be injurious and fatal to re-establish the matrimonial home with the respondent. Accordingly, he ought decree of divorce on the ground that respondent has deserted hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)144CTR(P& H)676; [1998]231ITR262(P& H)
Ashok Bhan, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of interest of Rs. 13,358 under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 1978-79. The assessee, a private limited company, was a partner in the firm, Four Fields Poultry Products, Amritsar. The partnership stood dissolved with effect from July 1, 1975, by a dissolution deed of the same date. The assessee-company took over the entire business of Four Fields Poultry Products along with all its assets and liabilities. The value of the assets acquired was Rs. 3,09,521. As on July 1, 1975, the account of the assessee in the books of the Four Fields Poultry Products showed a...
Tag this Judgment!