Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1963]48ITR288(P& H)
TEK CHAND J. - The following four question of law have been referred to the Full Bench :'(1) Whether the provisions of section 2(6A)(d) of the Indian Income-tax Act are ultra vires the Central Legislature ?(2) Whether the accumulated profits amounting to Rs. 4,69,244-13-0 could be deemed to have been distributed on the reduction of the capital from Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 15 lakhs within the meaning of section 2(6A)(d) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?(3) Whether the amount of Rs. 11,687-3-0 received by the assessee as security deposit on account of empty bottles could be considered as capital gains ?(4) Whether the accumulated profits could be considered as dividends deemed to have been distributed in the assessment year 1955-56 in view of the certificate granted by the Registrar of Companies under section 61(4) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, or could be considered as dividends deemed to have been distributed in the assessment year 1956-57 because the debits of refunds were actually made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H298
Mehar Singh, J.1. This is a petition, though it does not say so, apparently under Article 226 of the Constitution by Dr. Partap Singh, petitioner, seeking writ, direction or order to quash the order of suspension made against him and also the order of revocation of his leave preparatory to retirement and the enquiry that is going to be held against him. The facts and the circumstances are these.2. The petitioner joined Punjab Civil Medical Service in April, 1940. From June 1941 to the end of 1945 he served in the War in a temporary rank in the Indian Medical Service. His rank in the Army was Lieutenant Colonel. In 1947 the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province Civil Service Commission invited applications for selection of candidates in Class I of the Punjab Civil Medical Service. He made an application to be appointed to that service and on having been selected joined it on August 21, 1947- The partition of the country took place in the meanwhile on August 15, 1947. In the History of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1968P& H406
ORDERTek Chand, J.1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed on behalf of Bhupinder Singh Vohra, Tehsildar, against the State of Haryana. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Shri B. S. Grewal and the Commissioner, Ambala Division, are impleaded as respondents 2 and 3. The State of Punjab was allowed to be impleaded as respondent No. 4 under order of Sarkaria J., dated the 16th October, 1967.2. In this petition, the petitioner has made two prayers. He has firstly asked for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of his suspension dated 14th of August, 1967, pending departmental enquiry against him (An-nexure V). He has further prayed that a writ of mandamus should issue to the State of Har-vana to withdraw all the enquiries pending against him from respondent No. 2 and entrust the same to some other suitable officer of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 2 was maliciously disposed towards h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1969P& H79
Gurudev Singh, J.1. This order will dispose of 14 petitioners under this Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution (Civil Writ Nos. 2198 of 1966 and 159, 206, 416, 438, 439, 443, 484, 517, 518, 636, 2547 and 2720 of 1967), in which common questions of law have been raised. Dr. Shanthi Sarup Sharma and other petitioners have been engaging in and carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of bricks in various parts of the State of Punjab, as it stood before its reorganization in the year 1966. All of them hold valid licences to carry on this trade in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Control Bricks Supplies Order, 1956, and they are running brick-kilns for manufacture of bricks in the lands, of which some of the petitioners are owners, and the other lessees.2. In the year 1957 the Parliament enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act LXVII of 1957 (hereinafter called the Act ) for regulation of mines and development of minerals under the control of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1969P& H225; 1969CriLJ932
1. Forty -four persons were committed for trial under Section 120B read with Sections 465, 466 and 471, Indian Penal Code , to the Court of Session, Jullendur, on a charge of criminal consipracy, having a plurality of objects , namely to obtain fraudulently passports from persons at various places in the Punjab, to insert false and forged entries and photographs in them, and to use such forged passports and other travel documents for travelling to United Kingdom , Two of them, including Manmohan Singh Johal, were also charged for the substantive offence under Section 466, Indian Penal Code. They were tried by Shri C. G. Suri, EX- Offico Additional Session Judge , Jullundur, Thirty -six of these accused persons were passengers , hailing mostly from the Jullundur District of Punjab . Out of these passenger accused, the learned trial Judge has acquitted 15, and convicted the rest and sentenced each of them to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of RS. 101/- Out of the acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1969P& H310
1. The main question which calls for decision in this petition of Inder Singh and 43 other employees of Messrs. Podar Textile Mills, Amritsar (respondent No. 2), under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is whether a disputed claim in pursuance of a notification under the Minimum Wages Act (11 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Wages Act,) can or cannot be made under sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, (14 of 1947) (hereafter called the Act), before a Labour Court established under the Act.2. Respondent No. 2 is an industrial concern engaged in finishing textile goods. Minimum Wages of certain categories of the employees in such concerns had originally been fixed by a notification, dated August 4, 1964. That notification was subsequently superseded by notification, dated March 4, 1965, issued under Section 5(2) of the Wages Act, Disputes arose between the petitioners and respondent No.2 regarding the wages due to the petitioners for the period Marc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1975]100ITR281(P& H)
D.K. Mahajan, J.1. This order will dispose of Income-tax Cases Nos. 26, 27 and 28 of 1972.2. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, has moved this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying that in Income-tax Cases Nos. 26 and 27 of 1972, the following question of law should be referred for the opinion of this court;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in reducing the quantum of penalty having been satisfied that the offence of concealment was there without any doubt ?'3. In Income-tax Case No. 28 of 1972, the Commissioner wants the following two questions of law to be referred for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified to hold that the assessee had a reasonable cause for late filing of return in March, 1968 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified to hold ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1975]101ITR106(P& H)
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.1. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'), was issued and despatched on February 24, 1970, relating to the assessment year 1961-62 to the petitioner by the Income-tax Officer, Sangrur. No return was filed by the petitioner in response to the notice. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, issued another, notice on October 10, 1973, under Section 142(1) of the aforesaid Act in which he was intimated to appear on November 23, 1973. The counsel for the petitioner appeared on November 24, 1973, and got the case adjourned to December 10, 1973, for filing a reply. The petitioner filed a reply dated December 9, 1973, supported by an affidavit stating therein that the alleged notice under Section 148 was not served upon him. He further stated that no proceedings were competent against him under Section 148 of the 1961 Act, as notice was not served upon him within eight...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1975P& H324
Sandhawalia, J.1. A multi-pronged attack against the validity and the constitutionality of the Punjab Wheat (Restriction of Stock by Producers) Order 1974 has been forcefully levelled in this writ petition. It arises from facts which are not in serious dispute but to which detailed reference is nevertheless necessary.2. Partap Singh Kadian, petitioner, claims to be what may compendiously be termed as a progressive farmer of the State of Punjab. He is a Graduate in Agriculture and has adopted farming as his profession and carries on mechanical cultivation of an area of 27 acres of land situated in village Kadian, Tahsil and district Ludhiana. He has been a former member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly and is now the General Secretary of the Punjab Khetibari Zamindari Union which claims to have a membership of more than seventy-five thousand farmers. The writ petition is therefore, claimed to be more or less of a representative character on behalf of the producers.3. The petitioner cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1976P& H365
ORDER1. In this set of writ petitions the primary challenge is directed against the Wheat Dealers Licensing and Price Control (Fourth Amendment) Order, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Fourth Amendment Order, and the acquisition of the stocks of wheat held by the petitioners thereunder.2. It suffices to advert to the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 6372 of 1974. Therein it is averred on behalf of thirty-two petitioners that in the year 1973 the Central and the State Governments took up policy decision to take over the wholesale trade in wheat. Consequent thereto the Punjab Wheat Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order of 1973 was promulgated. This, in effect, excluded the wholesale dealers from trading in wheat. How-ever, certain difficulties were encountered in the implementation of the wheat trade take over policy and in March, 1974, again a policy decision to reverse the same was taken and in order to effectuate the same the State of Punjab issued the Punjab Wheat Dealers Lic...
Tag this Judgment!