Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)152PLR46
Vijender Jain, C.J.1. This order will dispose of L.P.A. No. 90 and 91 of 2008, arising out of C.W.P. No. 3732 of 1982 and 3570 of 1982 respectively, directed against the order dated 8.8.2007 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the aforesaid writ petitions and set aside the order of Chief Sales Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (for short 'the 1976 Act') wherein the sale of land by auction in favour of the petitioners was set aside alter 17 years.2. Facts in brief are that surplus rural evacuee land situated in village Khera Bet, Tehsil and District Ludhiana which was lying unutilized for many years after the partition of the country was transferred by Central Government to the State of Punjab in 1961 at a fixed price under a transaction popularly known as 'Package Deal'. It is further noticed that instructions were framed under Article 162 of the Constitutio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)152PLR171
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing orders dated 20.03.2007 (P-2) passed by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the petitioner-Nigam and the order dated 17.04.2007(P-3) rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner-Nigam. A further prayer for quashing order dated 21.09.2007 (P-4) has also been made which is passed by Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana holding that the officers of the petitioner-Nigam namely, Sh. Shiv Kumar LM, Sh. Krishan Lal Meter Reader & Sh. Sant Kumar, ALM are responsible for planting the case of theft on the consumer-respondent No. 4 due to their malafide intention.2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that the consumer-Respondent No. 4 Sh. Som Nath was provided with a tube- well electric connection bearing account No. MK2-29 for horticulture in the month of September 2004. The petitioner-Nigam has asserted that on raid of his premises on 6.06.2006 it was fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)151PLR539
Vinod K. Sharma, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to challenge the order dated 11.2.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak confirming that of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak dated 8.3.2004.2. The respondent Brahmo, step mother of the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance from the petitioner.3. The case set up by the respondent-step mother was that she was married to Mange Ram father of the petitioner, who died on 17.6.1996 and out of the said wedlock, one daughter namely Meena Devi was bom. Meena Devi is married and is living at her matrimonial home. The agricultural land belonging to Mange Ram has been inherited by the petitioner on the basis of a Will, which was alleged to be forged and a civil suit qua the same is pending.4. It was further the case of the respondent that petitioner is drawing salary of Rs. 7...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)2PLR648
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.1. This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing R.F.A. No. 355 of 1993 and R.F.A. No. 2307 of 1993, since both of them have been filed against the same award of Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar dated 05.1.1993.2. The facts are being taken from R.F.A. No. 355 of 1993:3. Vide notification dated 03.6.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') which was followed by notification issued under Section 6 dated 16.7.1987, land measuring 2 kanals situated in the area of Village Boot was acquired by the Punjab Government for erection of 33 KV Sub Station.4. At the time of acquisition of the land, it was having super structure, which too was acquired. The Collector vide his award dated 31.8.1988 assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 4,000/- per marla and also awarded Rs. 41,448/- on account of super structure along-with 30% solatium and 12% acquisition charges w.e.f. 19.6.1987 to 31.8.1988.5. The land owners dissatisfied with th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)216CTR(P& H)71
1. Notice of motion.2. Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, Asstt. Solicitor General of India, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents, on the asking of the Court.3. We have heard the counsel for the parties on the interim stay in light of the interim order dt. 28th March, 2008 passed by the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 5462 of 2007 [reported as Vatika Farms (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2008) 5 DTR (Del) J57--Ed.]. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the said order, we pass the following interim directions:(a) The application for settlement filed by the petitioner under Section 245C of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') would not abate on 31st March, 2008.(b) Any information disclosed by the petitioner in the annexure to Form 34B in Appendix II to the IT Rules, 1962 will not be used against the petitioner for any purpose whatsoever until disposal of the settlement application of the petitioner by the Settlement Commission.4. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)217CTR(P& H)550
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.1. The assessee has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), against the order dt. 27th Feb., 2007 passed by the Tribunal, Chandigarh, Bench-B, in ITA No. 844/Chd/2004 for the asst. yr. 1998-99.2. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15th March, 1999 at an income of Rs. 35,38,62.548 after making various adjustments. It is relevant to mention here that during the financial year 1996-97 corresponding to asst. yr. 1997-98, the appellant had made a provision of Rs. 7 crores for payment of arrears of the salary to the employees. Since it was only a provision and the exact liability had not been quantified, it was added back as income in the return filed and the amount of Rs. 7 crores was taxed. In the next financial year i.e., 1997-98, the liability was quantified and an amount of Rs. 4,99,37,406 was paid during the next year i.e.. 1998-99. Since the amount was paid out of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)216CTR(P& H)136; [2009]309ITR163(P& H); [2009]177TAXMAN15(Punj& Har)
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dt. 11th May, 2007 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short the Tribunal'), in IT(SS)A No. 9/Asr/2006 for the block period from 1st April, 1987 to 20th May, 1997 raising the following proposed substantial question of law:(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law to not hold the assessee as an agent to the non-resident under Section 163 of the IT Act?2. A search operation was carried out in the case of M/s Hotel Park Avenue, Phillaur on 20th May, 1997 under Section 132 of the Act. The residential premises of the assessee was also searched. It came to the notice of the Revenue that one Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, brother of the assessee was maintaining some bank accounts. Source of deposits in these bank accounts were required to be explained. Therefore, proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)2PLR573
Mohinder Pal, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court earlier dismissed this writ petition vide order dated August 22, 2005, on the ground that it is highly belated. The petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing S.L.P. (Civil) No. 881 of 2006. Vide order dated January 18, 2007, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remitted the matter to this Court to hear it on merits. This is how we are seized of the matter.2. The petitioner was enrolled in Army Medical Corps, Lucknow in September, 1965. In 1982, he suffered from medical problem of weak eye-sight. He became almost 80% disabled despite getting the treatment. Therefore, he was placed under low medical category 'EEE' permanent by the Medical Board. He was invalidated out of service on February 20, 1983 on account of 'Bilateral Maculopathy' after rendering 17 years and 143 days of qualifying service. He was granted service element of pension with effect from February 21, 1983. The petitioner claimed disability pension for the 80% ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : IV(2008)BC59; (2008)2PLR679
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This petition is directed against order dated 9.0.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for brevity 'AAIFR') in Appeal No. 21 of 2005 (Annexure P-4). The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the issue of limitation by recording a finding that the appeal has been filed after a period of 45 days as provided by Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for brevity 'the Act'). The appeal was directed against an order dated 17.12.2003 passed by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for brevity 'BIFR'). The operative part of the order passed by the AAIFR reads thus:A perusal of the available records before us indicates that when the appeal was first filed on 9.2.2004 it was done without filing a copy of the impugned order which is required to be invariably filed in terms of our rules/regulations.2. Subsequently, they have filed an affidavit enclosing a certified copy of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)217CTR(P& H)487
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dt. 5th April, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench I, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal'), in ITA No. 316/Del/2005 for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 raising the following proposed substantial questions of law:(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that issue of notice under Section 148 was invalid and that the assessment so framed lacks jurisdiction?(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that the AO was not right in issue of notice under Section 148 without framing the assessment in response to the earlier notice issued under Section 142(1) of the IT Act on 23rd Feb., 2000, though no valid return was filed by the assessee in response to notice dt. 23rd Feb., 2000, and the return f...
Tag this Judgment!