Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1984P& H26
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.1. Whether the writ. Court is empowered to limit the scope of the lis in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to one or more specific grounds only, at the threshold stage of its admission is the significant question which necessitated this. reference to the Division Bench.2. N. C. Mahendra petitioner was working. as an Executive Engineer under the Haryana State Electricity Board when, on 4th November, 1974; he was placed, under suspension in view of the departmental proceedings a against him. A charge-sheet was duly served on him on the l3th January; 1975 and after the completion of the enquiry; that followed, he was. served with a show cause notice as to why his three increments be not stopped with cumulative effect. On 11th July; 1977 he submitted a reply thereto, As averred by him, no punishment was inflicted on him and later he was promoted to the post of the Superintending Engineer vide order, Annexure P: 2, dated the l3th of September, l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1983]143ITR620(P& H)
S.S. Kang, J.1. Bhim Singh has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated March 24, 1975 (copy annex. P-3), issued by the ITO, ' B ' Ward, Rohtak.2. The facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are that Bhim Singh, petitioner, is a wine contractor and has been in this trade since 1952. He has his wine shops at different places. He has been an income-tax assessee since the commencement of his business and has been paying taxes regularly. His accounting year is from 1st of April to the 31st of March of the subsequent year and the relevant year for the purpose of this petition is the accounting year 1957-58, corresponding to 1st of April, 1957, to the 31st of March, 1958, relevant to the assessment year 1958-59. During this assessment year the I.T. authorities conducted a raid on the premises known as Purana Karkhana, Jind, and made intensive searches. Certain documents were s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1997P& H87
ORDERR.P. Sethi, Actg. C. J.1. 'All men are created equal' declared Abraham Lincen inhis Gettysburg Address. These words wererepeated by Thomas Jefferson in Declaration of Independence and since 1776 this statement has been echoed by generations in United States. The Liberty and Equality were the watch words of the French Revolution and the foundations upon which the great Magna Carta of England stood. Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights States declared. All are equal before law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of law.' Jennings's in his Law of the Consitution (5th Edition page 50) stated, 'Equality before the law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered, that like should be treated alike.' Dicey's Law of the Constitution, (10 Edition page 202) asserted equality before the law as a corollary from his famous doctrine of Rule of Law. The idea of equality is the heart and soul of the Indian Constit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H373
Achhru Ram, J.1. This order will dispose of also civil Misc. Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 12 of 1948 in Civil Original No. I [1] of 1948. All these petitions are made for the issue of directions to the New Bank of India, Limited, for payment to the petitioners in full of the amounts of their respective claims.2. In civil Misc. No. 4 of 1948 the petitioner is one Mr. Shiam Lal, originally of Lyallpur, now residing in Qarol Bagh in Delhi. He got a draft for Rs. 32,000 from the Lyallpur Branch of the bank on 11th August 1947, on payment of a sum of Rs. 32,000 in cash besides the amount chargeable by the bank by way of commission for exchange. The allegations contained in his petition supported by two affidavits filed by him on 11th March 1948 and 24th May 1948, are that eommunal disturbances in the Western Punjab, particularly in Lahore, having taken a very serious turn, the petitioner decided to leave Lyallpur and to go over to Delhi for purposes of security of life and property, that he happened to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H9
Harnam Singh, J. 1. This order disposes of Civil Miscellaneous (Writs) Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of 1951.2. Briefly summarised, the material facts are these. On the 17th of February, 1951, respondent No. 1 gave notice under Section 52A of the Indian Insurance Act, 1938, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to the Jupiter General Insurance Company, Limited, Bombay, the Empire of India Life Assurance Company, Ltd., Bombay, and the Tropical Insurance Company, Ltd., New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the companies, that he had reason to believe that the companies were acting in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the interests of holders of life insurance policies of those Companies and informing them that he would hear them on the 26th of February, 1951, in his office in New Delhi, and unless satisfactory cause was shown he would make a report to respondent No. 2 for the appointment of an Administrator to manage the affairs of the companies. Grounds for action under Section 52A of the Act wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H309
Bhandari, J. 1. The only point for decision in the present case is whether the Abducted Persons (Recovery and Restoration) Act, 1949, is inconsistent with or violative of the Constitution of India. 2. In June 1951 the police entered the house of Ajaib Singh petitioner, arrested Mst. Mukhtiar Kaur 'alias' Sardaran under Section 4 of the impugned Act and took her to the Muslim Girls Refugee Camp at Jullundur. On the 5th November, 1951, the petitioner, who claims to be Mukhtiar Kaur's father, put in a written application for a writ of habeas corpus in which he prayed that Mukhtiar Kaur be discharged from restraint as she was not an 'abducted person' and that she be not taken out of the territory of India. On the 17th November the tribunal constituted by the Central Government under Section 6 of the said Act came to the conclusion that she was an 'abducted person' within the meaning of the expression as defined in the Act of 1949 and recommended that she should be taken out of India and re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1953P& H77
Soni, J.1. This is an application for a writ of mandamus to issue to the State Government and the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jullundur, requiring them to forbear from enforcing in this State the provisions of the Punjab Intoxicating Spirituous Preparations, Import, Export, Transport, Possession and Sale Rules, 1952, contained in certain notifications. This application also contains a prayer that while declaring the rules and notifications as illegal, void and unenforceable the State and the Excise and Taxation Commissioner be ordered to allow the petitioner to exercise his right to possess, consume or use, import, export, transport and manufacture the articles mentioned in the application which are the subject-matter of the said rules and notifications.2. The matter arose in this way. The petitioner, Dr. Bashambar Nath, is a chemist registered under the Drugs Act, 1942 and has a business concern in Amritsar and carries on the trade of dispensing prescriptions and manufacture of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1954P& H55
Harnam Singh, J. 1. In Civil Original No. 62 of 1952 the question that arises for decision is whether the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is 'ultra vires' the Constitution of India. 2. Briefly summarised, the facts material to the point under consideration are these. On 29-8-1951, Uttam Singh instituted Civil Suit No. 173 of 1951 for possession by pre-emption of the land sold by defendant 4 to defendants 1 to 3 on 13-9-1950. In para. 4 of the plaint it was stated that compared with defendants 1 to 3 the plaintiff possessed a preferential right to purchase the land in suit for the following reasons: (a) That the plaintiff is proprietor with share in the 'shamilat' in 'mauza' Majri while defendants 1 to 3 are not proprietors of land in that 'mauza' and (b) That out of the land included in 'Khata' Nos. 207 and 208, 'Khasra' Nos. 1264, 126S and 1268, the plaintiff owns land measuring 50 'bighas' 4 'biswas' and that the land in suit was a part of 'khata' N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1954P& H73
Kapur, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 68 and 71 of 1953. One is brought by the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, against a judgment of Harnam Singh J. dated the 9th September, 1953. whereby he quashed the order of the Collector confiscating rock-salt imported by the original petitioner Amarjit Singh and imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and ordered the redetermination of the question by the Assistant Collector of Customs and also released the 55 wagons of rock-salt on burnishing a security of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The of her appeal is brought by the petitioner Amarjit Singh for the quashing of the order altogether and for setting aside that portion of the judgment which directs redetermination of the question and releases the rock-salt on furnishing of security and not unconditionally.2. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 the respondent is Amarjit Singh, proprietor of the firm Punjab Traders Corporation which it is alleged has its Head Office at Bombay and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1960P& H257
(1) The fact giving rise to this second appeal are as under: The property in dispute belonged to one Hukmi who died on the 17th October 1923, leaving a widow Mst. Tabi and a widow of his predeceased son Mst. Chandar Kaur. On the 6th June, 1911, Hukmi had made a will, Exhibit P. 15, by virtue of which he bequeathed one-third of his estate to his brother-in-law Nathu, (brother of Mst. Tabi) one-third to Mst. Tabi and the rest one-third to Mst. Chandar Kaur. It was provided in the will that Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur shall not be able to alienate the property in any way and shall keep the property only till their lives and for their maintenance. After the death of Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur their share was also to go to Nathu. On the 13th February, 1925, the entire property was mutated in the name of Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur, but on a suit brought by Nathu for possession of his one-third share a decree was passed in his favour on the 21st April, 1925, which the result tha...
Tag this Judgment!