Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2002]110CompCas610(P& H)
V.K. Jhanji, J.1. This civil revision has been filed against order dated 3.11.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jallandhar whereby application of the petitioners under Order VII Rules 1 and 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint was dismissed.2. Succintly slating, facts of the case are that M/s. Standard Electricals Limited was originaly incorporated on 10.1.1958 as 'Indo Asian Traders Private Limited' under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Firstly, its name was changed to M/s. A.I. Switchgears Ltd. and again to the present name, M/s. Standard Electricals Limited. The Company is presently engaged in business of manufacture and marketing of electrical switchgears. The authorised share capital of the Company is stated to be Rs. 6 Crores and its one share is worth Rs. 10/-. It was being run by Mr. J.K. Gupta and Mr. J.M. Goyal till 1994 when the Company transferred its share to the extent of 60 per cent to M/s. Havell India Limited (for sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2002CriLJ1705
ORDERBakhshish Kaur, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.2. Bhagat Singh-petitioner had purchased a plot measuring 550 squares yards as 165/1944 share of 10 Kanal, 16 marlas land comprising in Khasra No.4/24/1 andl4/4/l situated in Risala, Tehsil and District Panipat, for a consideration of Rs. 66,000/- vide sale deed dated 19-5-1990. Mutation was sanctioned in his favour on 20-8-1994.3. The respondent with the intention to grab the land in question, tried to demolish the Northern boundary wall of the plot, which gave rise to the filing of the suit for permanent injunction by the plaintiff. The Civil Court vide its order dated 18th March, 1996 directed the parties to maintain status quo. Copy of the order is annexed herewith the petition as Annexure P-2. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on 6th December, 1997 as per order Annexure P-3.4. In January, 2001, the contemnors started doing earth fill...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : II(2002)ACC365; 2002ACJ1918
Mehtab S. Gill, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for issuing of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated May 6, 1998 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commandant, 3rd Commando Battalion, Phase XI, Mohali (respondent No. 3), directing the recovery of half of the compensation amount along with interest amounting to Rs.1,18,545/- being 50% of the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh to the claimants, viz. Smt. Kaushalya Devi, sister of the deceased Dalip Kumar, and Devinder Singh injured, respectively, from the salary of the petitioner in instalments at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. 2. The petitioner has averred that he was working as Head constable/Driver in the 4th Commando Battalion, Chandigarh. On May 3, 1993, Davinder Singh was driving Scooter No. CHN-7422 and Dalip Kumar was sitting behind him. They were going from sector 5 towards Industrial Area. When the scooter turned on the dividing road of Sectors 5 and 8, a Punjab ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2002P& H232
Bakhshish Kaur, J. 1. The challenge in this revision is to the order whereby the matter has been referred to the arbitrator as per order dated November 18, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar.2. The factual matrix of the case is that Mukta Sharma plaintiff-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) filed the suit for possession after ejectment of the defendants-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') from the tenanted premises and for recovery of Rs. 25,000/- per month for the ground floor and Rs. 10,000/- for the basement, in all Rs. 35,000/- for the illegal use and occupation of premises from July, 1998 till delivery of possession thereof. Interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum has also been claimed on the amount.3. The facts not disputed are that the defendants were inducted as tenants in the demised premises and an agreement to this effect was executed on 9.12.1989. Initially, it was given or rent at the rat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2002(79)ECC763; 2002(140)ELT376(P& H)
ORDERJawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots and billets. It has filed this petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with the prayer that the Tribunal be directed to state the facts and refer the following two questions of law for the opinion of this Court :-1. 'Whether the excise duty on goods not actually manufactured can be levied and collected under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when the duly is levied under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the goods produced or manufactured ?'2. 'Whether duty of excise can be levied and collected simply on account of failure of applicant to strictly comply procedural requirement ?'2. Notice of the petition was issued. No one appears despite completion of service.3. The factual position is that the petitioner had claimed abatement of excise duty on the ground that the factory premises had remained closed from January 16, 1998 to January 31, 1998. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2002)174CTR(P& H)44
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.A complaint under section 276C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was filed by Mr. B.R. Anand, Income Tax Officer, B-Ward, Karnal. It was, inter alia, alleged that for the assessment year 1984-85 the firm had filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 23,020. The contents of the return were verified by Raj Kumar, accused No. 4. The assessing officer made certain additions and the taxable income was fixed at Rs.1,98,200. The accused were summoned. The charge was framed on 19-9-1994, only against Desh Raj, a partner of the firm. It was noticed by the court that two accused had expired during the pendency of the complaint. After recording evidence, the Trial Court found that Raj Kumar, accused No. 4 had verified the contents of the return. Desh Raj was not responsible 'for the conduct of the business of the firm'. Thus, he was acquitted.2. Aggrieved by the order the present petition for the grant of leave to appeal has been filed under section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2002]256ITR110(P& H)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. A complaint under Section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was filed by Mr. B.R. Anand, Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Karnal. It was, inter alia, alleged that for the assessment year 1984-85 the firm had filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 23,020. The contents of the return were verified by Raj Kumar, accused No. 4. The Assessing Officer made certain additions and the taxable income was fixed at Rs. 1,98,200. The accused were summoned. The charge was framed on September 19, 1994, only against Desh Raj, a partner of the firm. It was noticed by the court that the two accused had expired during the pendency of the complaint. After recording evidence, the trial court found that Raj Kumar, accused No. 4, had verified the contents of the return. Desh Raj was not responsible 'for the conduct of the business of the firm'. Thus, he was acquitted.2. Aggrieved by the order the present petition for the grant of leave to appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2002]108CompCas895(P& H)
Singhvi, J.1. These appeals are directed against order dated 8-3-2001, passed by the learned company judge in the Company Application Nos. 542 of 1999 and 11 of 2001 vide which he declared that in view of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act'), the court cannot take further proceedings in Company Petition No. 108 of 1997 and rejected the appellants' prayer to modify orders dated 25-7-1997, 5-9-1997 and 3-10-1997.2. The facts of the case are that on a petition filed by the respondent under Section 433 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, which was registered as the Company Petition No. 108 of 1997, for winding up of the appellant, the learned company judge ordered issuance of notice on 25-7-1997 and restrained it from alienating the assets of the company except in regular course of business. After service of notice, the learned company judge passed order dated 5-9-1997, vide which he modified the ex parte interim order and gav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2002]121TAXMAN72(Punj& Har)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. The appellant is running a Cinema house at Ludhiana. It filed its return for the assessment year 1983-84. It declared a taxable income of Rs. 1,10,556. The case was processed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide order dated 31-3-1986. The assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 1,76,000 on account of payment made to three distributors.2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority sustained the addition of Rs. 1,76,000. A further notice for enhancement of income for an amount of Rs. 3,16,890 was issued. The appellant showed cause. However, the plea as raised by the assessee was rejected. Thus, a total addition of Rs. 4,92,890 was made. The appellant approached the Tribunal. Its claim having been rejected, it has filed the present appeal under section 260A of the Act.3. Mr. Mittal, the learned counsel for the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2002P& H231
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. The petitioner has approached the Court with the prayer that the notice issued by the respondent-Haryana Financial Corporation for sale of plot measuring 649 square meters be quashed. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.2. On September 22, 1995 a loan of Rs. 7.50 lacs was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. However, an amount of Rs. 6.55 lacs only was released after the execution of a Hypothecation deed dated January 20, 1996, the petitioner had also given a collateral security in the form of equitable mortgage of plot measuring 649 square meters. There was default in repayment. On August 13, 1997 the Corporation took over the hypothecated assets viz. computers etc. which had been installed by the petitioner. These have not been sold till today. On October 23, 2000 the Corporation published a notice in the Daily Tribune for the sale of land measuring 649 square meters. Hence this petition.3. Mr. Later, learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!