Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)152PLR174
Vijender Jain, C.J.CM No. 4353 of 2008:1. Application is allowed. Rejoinder filed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4 is taken on record.C.W.P. No. 2066 of 2008:2. This petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2007 (P.25) of the Revisional Authority setting aside the order dated 8.12.2006 (P.20) passed by the Appellate Authority.3. It is the admitted case of the parties that on 17.9.2004, respondent No. 4 invited applications for allotment of industrial plots at Gurgaon and in respect thereto the petitioner applied for an industrial plot along with a demand draft of Rs. 3,50,000/- as earnest money. It is the case of the parties that an industrial plot No. 685, measuring 1000 Meters, Sector 37-II, Gurgaon was allotted to the petitioner by the Estate Officer, HUDA respondent No. 4 for setting up an industrial unit of garments thereon. Vide Annexure P.I, petitioner was to give acceptance to the letter and was to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,12,50...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)2PLR667
M.M. Kumar, J.1. The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition is for quashing order dated 21,11.2007 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (P-4) upholding the view taken by the Collector (ADC) Ludhiana dated 15.2.2Q06 (P-5). The aforementioned authorities have held that the stamp duty on the sale deed has to be assessed on the rate when it is presented for registration irrespective of the fact whether the purchase was made interior to the date of the presentation. Concluding portion of the order passed by the Commissioner in para 3 reads as under:I have gone through the grounds of appeal and have also gone through the record of the lower Court. The perusal of the order passed by Collector (ADC) Ludhiana shows that in a reference received from Sub Registrar, Ludhiana (West), the sale deed in question was impounded and the same was sent to the Collector (ADC) Ludhiana to initiate the further proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)2PLR547
Hemant Gupta, J.1. The petitioners have invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for claiming pension, having retired on 31.12.1996 and 30.9.1996, respectively.2. Petitioner No. 1 was enrolled in the Border Security Force on 10.4.1986 whereas petitioner No. 2 on 3.1.1986. On 27.6.1979, a circular was issued by the Government of India for grant of pensionary benefits under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules'). Such circular contemplated that if in special circumstances, a member of the Force has submitted his resignation, yet he would be allowed pensionary benefits.3. The special circumstances, which were enumerated in the circular are extreme compassionate grounds; where the records of service of the individual are exceptional; and indifferent health. After the said circular was issued, petitioner No. 1 submitted his resignation (Annexure P.2) on the ground that his mother is suffering from cancer and father from a heart trouble and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)151PLR717
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 3.1.1996, passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of the Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as 'the STC), whereby the application of the petitioner for the increase of return trips from two to three on Bathinda- Moonak via Kotshamir- Mysore Khana- Maur- Mansa-Phaphra- Budhlada- Bareta- Jakhal- Karyal route (hereinafter referred to as 'the route in question') was rejected; and the order dated 22.11.2006, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the STAT'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.2. In the present case, the petitioner was holding two regular stage carriage permits Nos. 692/55 and 192/Reg/89 with two return trips daily on the route in question, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)151PLR569
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.1. The challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 28.1.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Bhiwani.2. The facts leading to the controversy raised in the revision petition deserve to be noticed first:3. The plaintiff-Shree Sanatan Dharam High School, instituted a suit (suit No. 536 of 1987) for permanent injunction as well as for declaration that the defendants, Bijay Kumar and others were not the duly elected members of the Governing Body of the said school nor had they any right or concern whatsoever to interfere in the working of the school. On 5.2.1988, defendants filed counter claim in the said civil suit. The reply to the counter claim was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on 30.5.1988. The issues in the suit were framed on 28.4.1989. The plaintiff concluded its evidence on 4.1.1996. When the suit was at the stage of evidence of the defendants, the plaintiff moved an application on 17.1.1996 for permission of the court t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)151PLR714
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.1.2007 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal') whereby the order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the State Transport Commissioner allowing the regular extension of one mini bus permit for plying four return trips daily on Dhuri-Bagrian route up to Bohran Gate, Nabha from Bagrian via Galwati, Dhingi, has been set aside while observing that the impugned extension granted by the State Transport Commissioner is illegal and violative of the Notification dated 22.2.2005 and the provisions of Clause (4) of the modified Transport Scheme dated 21.10.1997.2. In the present case, the petitioner was granted one mini bus permit with four return trips daily on Dhuri-Bagrian route in the year 1988. Subsequently, in respect of the said permit, the petitioner applied for grant of regular ext...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)2PLR544
Hemant Gupta, J.1. This order shall dispose of the Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11836-CAT of 2002 and 143%-CAT of 2002 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions.C.W.P. No. 1 1936-CAT of 2002 arises out the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') on 26.2.2002, whereby an original application filed by the petitioners under Section 19 of, the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') was dismissed.2. The order under challenge in C.W.P. No. 14396-CAT of 2002 was passed by the Tribunal on 15.4.2002 relying upon the earlier order passed in the case of 'Dr. Lok Singh and Ors. v. Chandigarh Administration which is under challenge in C.W.P. No. 11836-CAT of 2002.3. Chandigarh Administration published advertisement inviting applications for filling up various posts of Professors, Readers, Senior Lecturers and Lecturers in Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2009]316ITR224(P& H)
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of ITA Nos. 496/2005 and 557/2005 as the common question of law on similar facts arises in all these appeals. However, the facts are taken from ITA No. 496 of 2005.2. The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh , Bench 'A' Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to asthe Tribunal'), dated 30-5-2005 passed in ITA No. 718/Chandi/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 raising the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Tribunal is perverse as the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the food cost ratio to 55 per cent only on conjectures and surmises and without any evidence, whereas the assessing officer had based its order on the basis of results of 16 hotels/ res ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)2PLR664
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. No. 1123 of 2006, C.W.P. No. 2166 of 2007 and C.W.P. No. 1465 of 2006 as the common question of law is involved therein. However, facts have been referred from C.W.P. No. 1123 of 2006. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing notification dated 18.1.2001 (P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity the 'Act') declaration dated 30.12.2004 issued under Section 6 of the Act (P-5).2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-State issued a notification dated 18.1.2001 under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Act proposing to acquire 12.18 acres of land falling in village Kheri Markanda Hadbast No. 378 dated 11.64 acres of village Ratgal Hadbast No. 376, 0.70 acres of Dara Kalan Hadbast No. 379 for the public purpose, namely for the development and utilization of land as for out fell storm sewer and for sewerage treatment plant and Samshan Ghat ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)3PLR78
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.1. This revision by the tenant is directed against the order dated 3.8.2004 of the Rent Controller, Nawanshahar, dated 3.8.2004 whereby an application moved by him for grant of leave to contest a petition filed by the respondent-landlady under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') for his eviction from the tenanted shop situated at Kothi Road. Nawanshahar was dismissed. As a consequence of dismissal of aforesaid application, ejectment petition was allowed and the petitioner herein was ordered to vacate the premises in dispute and hand over the vacant possession thereof to the respondent-landlady.2. The facts giving rise to the controversy between the parties are that the landlady filed a petition for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the premises in dispute. It was averred that she was a non-Resident Indian and immigrant of England. In her capacity as such, she was a specified landlady as defined under the prov...
Tag this Judgment!