Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR416
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Having failed to persuade the learned Single Judge to nullify the decision of the Government contained in Annexure P-2 dated 1.9.1978 whereby the promotions of the appellants as Junior Accountants were nullified, the writ petitioners have filed this appeal.2. The facts which were necessary for deciding whether the impugned decision of the Government is illegal or not are that the Board of Directors of the Ferozepur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ferozepur (for short 'the Bank') passed a resolution on 3.11.1977 that the registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, may be requested to sanction the creation of eight posts of Junior Accountants for Head Office as well as branches. However, before the Registrar could take a decision on the request made by the Board of Directors, the Executive Committee of the respondent Bank, in its meeting held on 28.11.1977 resolved that the appellants be promoted as Junior Accountants against the posts which became available due to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)118PLR299
N.K. Kapoor, J.1. This is unsuccessful plaintiffs first appeal against the judgment and decree of Sub Judge 1st Class, Samrala, dated 12.4.1979 dismissing her suit.2. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that sale deeds dated 15.2.1967, 16.2.1967 and 17.2.1967 executed by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendants No. 1 to 5 are illegal, void, based on fraud and collusion besides being for insufficient consideration with consequent relief for possession of land in dispute and in the alternative for rendition of accounts and for recovery of amount found due against the defendants on the allegations that defendants No. 1 to 6 are very close and near relations of each other and are members of the joint Hindu Family.3. Pursuant to the notice issued by the court, defendants put in appearance. Defendants No. 1 to 5; defendants No. 6; and defendants No. 7 to 11 filed separate written statements controverting the material averments made by the plaintiff in her plaint. By way of de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1998CriLJ893
V.K. Bali, J.1. Three separate criminal Appeals bearing No. 456-DB of 1994,457-DB of 1994 and 507-DB of 1997 have been filed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants Madan Gopal, Arjan Dass and Ram Dass holding them guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to further undergo R. I. for one month each.2. On the statement of Ajit Raj son of Rakha Ram which was recorded by Satinder Singh ASI on 28th of January, 1994 at 10.30 a.m. F. I. R. Ex. PD came into being wherein it was mentioned that Ajit Raj was employed in the Water Supply Department and was posted at village Mamial for the last about three years. There was a place (tomb) of Baba Mehar Shah in the area of village Mamial towards the Eastern side of the bank of the canal where the general public used to come to pray accor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1999]235ITR561(P& H)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following question of law to this court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), along with the statement of the case :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, would operate retrospectively so that the valuation of the assessee's building as on January 31, 1975, should be made in accordance with the said Rule although the said Rule IBS came into force with effect from April 1, 1979 ?'The facts relevant to the aforesaid question are :The assessee was the owner of a residential house at Mall Road, Amritsar. He returned the value of the house at Rs. 1,40,000 but the Wealth-tax Officer valued the same at Rs. 3,94,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Wealth-tax), gave some relief in respect of the valuation of theland...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : II(1997)ACC623; 1999ACJ80; (1997)117PLR320
N.K. Kapoor, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 169, 170, 171 and 172 of 1986 as these raise common question of law and fact. Learned Single Judge top disposed of appeal, cross objections filed by the claimants as well as cross-objections filed by the truck owner by a common judgment.2. In an accident between a motor cycle and the truck bearing No. PUN-1781 Ram Singh, who was driving the motor cycle was killed while the pillion rider Gian Singh sustained serious injuries. Heirs of Ram Singh as well as the injured filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,08,000/- to the widow and children of Ram Singh whereas he Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 36,000/- to Gian Singh for the injuries suffered by him in this accident. As noticed earlier, claimants, the Insurance Company as well as the Truck owner challenged the order of the Tribunal by preferring an appeal/cross-objections.3. Counsel representing the Insurance ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1008
Sat Pal, J.1. By this judgment, we are disposing of Murder Reference No. 3 of 1996 and Criminal Appeal No. 261-DB of 1996 as both arise from the same judgment, dated 30th April, 1996, passed by Sessions Judge, Jind. By this judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Under Section 302, IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to death and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The sentence of death is subject to the confirmation by this Court. Under Section 307, IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- Under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Sessions Judge further ordered that in default of payment o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1998ACJ842; (1997)117PLR578
K.K. Srivastava, J.1. This judgment will dispose of four L.P.A. Nos. 814, 815, 816 and 817 all of 1986, filed against judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court delivered onl6.7.1986 in F.A.O. Nos. 155, 156, 233 and 234 all of 1985, directed against judgment dated 15.11.1984 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot, deciding Motor Accidents Claims No.33 and 34 of 1982.2. The two Motor Accident Claims cases were filed by the heirs and dependents of two deceased Kishan Chand son of Ram Rakha and Lakhvir Singh son of Santa Singh involved in a Motor accident taking place on 19.9.1982 at about 6.15 p.m. in Malout, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot, in the State of Punjab near the turning of old Bus Stand at Malout.3. The Motor Accidents Claim No. 33 of 5.11.1982 was filed by Smt. Gulab Kaur wife of Santa Singh and mother of Lakhvir Singh, the other deceased, Surjit Kaur widow of Lakhvir Singh and minor sons Gurmit Singh, Harjinder Singh and Jatinder Singh of Lakhvir Singh (deceased...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR663
ORDERS.S. Sodhi, J. 1. In a departmental enquiry, where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, exonerating the person charged, is such person, on this account, entitled to notice of it, even if the relevant rules under which the enquiry is being held, do not provide for it A conflict of judicial precedents pertaining to this matter emerged during the hearing of this appeal.2. The plaintiff-Ram Gopal Gupta was working as Assistant Accountant with the State Bank of Patiala when on August 28, 1979, a charge-sheet was served upon him. In the enquiry that followed, he was exonerated of all the charges, but the'disciplinary authority, by its order of April 26, 1983 took a contrary view from that of the Enquiry Officer and held him guilty of the charges framed and proceeded thereafter to impose the punishment of withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect. It is this order that the plaintiff ought to challenge in the present suit.3. Adm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)118PLR574
V.K. Jhanji, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Kapurthala, whereby suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28th September, 1988 has been dismissed. Trial Court had decreed the suit.2. It has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that the learned District Judge is not justified in dismissing the suit solely on the ground that the suit is barred under Order Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his argument, counsel has referred to judgment of this Court in Smt. Bhagwan Kaur v. Harinder Pal Singh, (1992-1)101 P.L.R 643. He has contended that the cause of action in the earlier suit differs from the present suit which is for specific performance of agreement to sell and therefore, the suit ought to have been decreed.3. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on going through the judgment in Bhagwan Kaur's case (supra), cited by counsel for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR410
R.S. Mongia, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated November 25, 1986, dismissing the Regular First Appeal No. 481 of 1977 filed by the appellant.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal may be noticed :The land in dispute owned by one Abdul Hamid Khan was taken on 99 years' lease by Om Chand son of Nanak Chand, respondent No.1, who further leased it out by a registered lease deed (Ex. PW3/C) to Hukam Chand, appellant, and one Amar Nath, who was respondent No.3 in the regular First Appeal for a period of ten years w.e.f. March 1, 1957. The monthly rent was Rs.40/-. The material terms of the lease deed were that the leasees were entitled to use the land is question themselves or may lease it out further to a sub-leasce.It was further stipulated that the lessees were entitled to raise any construction thereon and shall also be liable to obtain sanction from the Municipal Committee in respect of the same...
Tag this Judgment!