Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1998CriLJ588
ORDERHarphul Singh Brar, J.1. A prayer has been made in this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the respondents by this Court for registration of a criminal case under Sections 382/384/386/389/392/395/148/149, I.P.C.2. It has been averred in the petition that petitioner Gurjant Singh is a registered power of attorney on behalf of Smt. Amarjit Kaur, w/o Balwant Singh and Smt. Daljit Kuar w/o Gurbans Singh, both residents of village Gill Kalan, Tehsil Phul, Distict Bathinda vide registered power of attorney No. 7913, dated 13-12-1996.3. The Government of India had issued a stage carriage permit in favour of Smt. Daljit Kaur and Smt. Amarjit Kaur for plying a mini bus between Rampura Nathana vide permit dated 30-1-1996 issued under the signature of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ferozpur. A bus No. PB-03-D-4200 was purchased by Smt. Daljit Kaur and Smt. Amarjit Kaur for plying on the said route. The petitioner being the power of attorney of Smt. Daljit Kaur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR630
N.C. Jain and Sarojnei Saksena, JJ.1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining the application for recalling the order of dismissal of the writ petition in default.2. Counsel for the appellants has submitted before us that he was present before the Bench upto 2.45 P.M. when the learned Single Judge was doing D.B. motion hearing matters. Ten cases were still to be dealt with by the Division Bench and he thought that his case would not be taken tip even if those 10 cases were to finish before 3.45 P.M. He has submitted that it was due to his miscalculation that the case was dismissed in default. Counsel has filed his personal affidavit.3. Apparently there is nothing to disbelieve the affidavit of the counsel. The appellants, who had been waiting for their turn since 1981, should not be made to suffer even if there is some lapse on the part of the counsel.4. For the reasons recorded above,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR386
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated July 27, 1987 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of and the petitioner was relegated to the remedy of appeal.2. In the amended writ petition filed by the appellant, legality of the order passed by the Collector on 2.4.1987 was challenged in addition to the prayer already made for quashing of the orders dated 3.12.1986, 26.12.1986 and the instructions dated 1.12.1986.3. After hearing the parties the learned Single Judge up-held the objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that an effective alternative remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner against the order dated 2.4.1987.4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge and memorandum of appeal. In our opinion, there is no valid justification to interfere with the discretion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1998CriLJ468
P.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated November 11, 1994, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302/326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 4000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302, IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence under Section 326, I.P.C. Both the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is that Sant Singh (deceased) used to reside along with his brothers Ajmer Singh and Chhaju Singh in a separate house in village Baghaur, whereas his brother Joginder Singh resided in a separate house in the same village and still his another brother Jasw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1998]229ITR477(P& H)
N.K. Agrawal, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short 'the Act') : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1975-76 on September 16, 1978, was barred by time and as such liable to be annulled ?' 2. The assessee, in the status of an individual, derived income from his proprietary business and from house property as also share income from the partnership firm, Everest Woollen Mills, Ludhiana. He filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 63,260 including share income from the firm at Rs. 21,479 for the assessment year 1975-76 (accounting year ending on March 31, 1975). The Assessing Officer examined the books of account of the assessee's pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR583
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition only on the ground that he had filed a civil suit on the same cause of action and had withdrawn the same without permission to file a fresh one, the petitioner-appellant has filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent.2. The facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the service of the District Rural Development Agency, Karnal vide order dated 19.11.1979 issued by the Chief Executive Officer. On 31.12.1982 he was confirmed in the service. After about 7 years of his entry in the service, the respondent No.1 terminated the petitioner's service vide his order dated 13.10.1986.3. The appellant instituted a civil suit in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge Karnal with the prayer that a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent No.1 from dismissing him from service be granted. He however, could not persuade ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1998]233ITR531(P& H)
N.K. Agrawal, J. 1. The following questions of law have been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 1,60,778 and Rs. 2,23,500 was required to be taxed as income from other sources for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, respectively 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest earned in these two years should not be reduced from the cost of the assets 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not allowing deduction of Rs. 33,750 on account of letter of credit charges for the assessment year 1976-77 and Rs. 31,000 on account of letter of credit charges and Rs. 75,606 as interest paid on overdraft for the assessment year 1977-78 from interest income ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR381
K.K. Srivastava, J.1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Kanhaya Lal-petitioner, who seeks the quashing of orders dated 11.3.1991 (Annexure P2) and dated 22.3.1991 (An-nexure P5) passed by the Secretary and Chairman, House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, respectively. Petitioner-Kanhaya Lal was working as a peon in the Animal Husbandry Department, Chandigarh, when he was allotted house No. 13-JE/2247, Sector 28-C, Chandigarh. The said allotment was made about 23 years prior to the filing of the writ petition, i.e. sometimes in the year 1968. The petitioner was later on transferred to the office of the Milk Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, which had its milk plant in the state of Punjab. Respondent No.2/Secretary, House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh, sent letter memo No. A-4/90 dated 11.3.1991, communicating the petitioner about the cancellation of the allotment of the house aforesaid with effect f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1998]232ITR102(P& H)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, Rohtak, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), after drawing up the statement of the case, has referred the following question of law to this court, being the jurisdictional High Court, for its opinion :'Was the Tribunal correct in holding that the assessee was not required to create development rebate reserve during the year, even though it had sufficient business income during this year, which was reduced to nil on account of brought forward losses from the earlier year ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are :The respondent-assessee is a limited company. The accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 ended on December 31, 1972. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of machine tools at its head office at Ballabhgarh in Haryana and rolling mill foundry unit and machine tools unit at its branch office at Batala in Punja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : II(1998)ACC199; (1997)117PLR581
ORDERN.K. Kapoor, J.1. Claimant still not dis-satisfied with the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge has filed this appeal.2. As per facts on record claimant while coming to join his duties in the Central Post Office Ludhiana met with an accident and suffered injuries on his person-on his chest and on his left arm. Report was lodged with the police and thereafter was admitted in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana where he remained confined from 17.11.1982 to 21.11.1982 and again from 7.12.1982 to 20.12.1982. A claim petition was filed claiming compensation on account of injuries/permanent disabilities, loss of income, special diet, medical expenses and other amount spent as rickshaw charges. Claim Tribunal framed the issues as arose on the pleadings of the parties and permitted the parties to adduce evidence. Tribunal on considering the matter in the light of evidence on record finally determined the compensation to be paid to the claimant at Rs. 8,162.75 i.e. Rs....
Tag this Judgment!