Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2005(105)FLR1159]; (2005)IILLJ856P& H; (2005)139PLR830
V.K. Bali, J.1. Petitioner is eligible and holds requisite qualifications for the post of Counter Incharge. He has undergone training for the said post as well for a period of five and a half months. He does not hold requisite qualifications, making him eligible for the post of Waiter, even though on this post, he worked as a trainee for long nine years. He is being denied even consideration either of the two posts as mentioned above, on the ground that whereas, he may be eligible to be appointed as Counter Incharge, he has not undergone the requisite training for the said post and further that he may have the requisite period of training for his appointment on the post of Waiter, he does not have the requisite qualification for the said post. The petitioner is on cross roads and on the facts and circumstances, to be detailed hereinafter seeks appointment on either of two jobs as mentioned above.2. As a preclude to the detailed facts given in the writ petition, we may briefly summarise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2006P& H107; I(2006)BC1; (2006)142PLR1; [2006]70SCL177(Punj& Har)
D.K. Jain, C.J.1. Rule D.B.2. Challenge in this bunch of writ petitions is to the legality and validity of the action taken by various banks and financial institutions under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the Act).3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length on common legal issues, which we propose to deal with in this judgment. We shall, however, take up each of the writ petitions' separately for decision on merits. But, in order to appreciate the main controversy, giving rise to this judicial action, we shall briefly refer to the pleadings in CWP No. 2550 of 2005. These are as follows:On 29.09.2003, the Bank issued to the petitioners a notice Under Section 13(2) of the Act calling upon them to pay an amount of Rs. 88,61,830.68 p. The petitioners filed reply to the notice on 18.10.2003 disputing their liability to pay the said amount. They asked for a copy ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2008]141CompCas611(P& H); (2007)4PLR383
M.M. Kumar, J.1. M/s. Ramji Lal Lattu Ram, Commission Agents, Anaj Mandi Narwana, District Jind, has filed the present petition under Section 433(a), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of M/s Arti Food & Fats (P) Limited-respondent-Company. It is pertinent to notice that against the respondent Company C.P. No. 287 of 1999 was admitted by this Court vide order dated 5.10.2001 and the instant petition was ordered to be heard along with that petition. The aforementioned C.P. No. 287 of 1999 has been disposed of today by a separate order.2. The case set up by the petitioner-firm is that respondent-Company is a private limited company and had authorised the petitioner-firm to purchase wheat for it. It is claimed that it was orally settled between the parties that if the payment of wheat was delayed for more than three days then respondent-Company was liable to pay customary interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment. The petitioner-firm purchased wheat for the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2009)221CTR(P& H)225; [2009]309ITR194(P& H); [2009]177TAXMAN103(Punj& Har)
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. This petition questions application of transfer pricing provisions in Chapter X of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') to the petitioner and quashing of notices under Sections 148 and 92CA(3) of the Act.2. Case set out in the petition is that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of USA and is, thus, a foreign company under Section 2(23A) of the Act. It has a branch office in India. It is a part of International Coca Cola Corporate Group. The said group has other companies operating in India incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.3. The petitioner obtained permission under Section 29(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) to operate a branch office in India to render services to Coca Cola Group companies, as per conditions mentioned in the application for the said permission. There is a service agreement between the petitioner on the one hand and Britco Foods Company (P) Ltd. (Britco) on the other. As per the said agr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2009NOC2988(F.B)(P&H)
1. Hearing this petition, has been an experience of sorts. Sentiments and emotions were on a high. We were under an international scanner. Letters were addressed to the members of the bench individually, as well as, collectively. A lot of these letters came from overseas. Some of the communications were addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court, and were forwarded to us for our consideration. The media covered the hearings from day to day, and in doing so, reported the issues canvassed, as it perceived them. The issue under the scanner was an aspect of a religious belief i.e. whether maintaining hair unshorn is an essential/important tenet of the Sikh religion. Based on media projections, individual sentimentalities were aroused. Depending on what was reported, reaction of readers, who thronged the court, varied from day to day. Intellectuals, Sikh scholars, and preachers of the Sikh religion, attended court proceeding, to have a first hand account of what was going on. While not ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Augustine George Masih, J.1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. R.C. SIB 2006 E 003, dated 5.2.2006 registered under Section 29 read with Sections 8 and 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act, 1985) and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the D&C; Act, 1940) at Police Station I/EOU.V, New Delhi (Annexure P-1) on the ground that no offence under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 is made out against the petitioners and for the offence under Section 27 of the D&C; Act, 1940. No FIR could be registered under Section 32 of the D&C; Act, 1940 and only the complaint could have been filed before the competent Court.2. Counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No. 1 Kashmir Chand was the proprietor of M/s Suraj Medical Agency, Court Road, Moga and petitioner No. 2 Roshan Lal was the competent employee under the D&C; Act, 1940 and the Rules, of the firm at the time when a joint raid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-790-MA-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 18, 2013 **** M/S.Tata Steel LTD.. . Petitioners versus M/S.Atma Tube Products LTD.& ORS.. . Respondents **** CRM-A-547-MA-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 18, 2013 **** Kesar Singh . . Petitioner versus Dheeraj Kumar . . Respondent **** CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HONBLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH HONBLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. **** Present: Mr.HL Tikku, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate; Mr.Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate (in CRM-790-MA-2010) Mr.PS Ahluwalia and Mr.Arjun Sheoran, Advocates (CRM-A-547-MA-2011) for the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Mr.Pardeep S. Poonia, Additional AG Haryana; Mr.Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana; Mr.Saurabh Mohunta, DAG Haryana; and Mr.Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana Mr.Amit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1 CR.A.No.292-DB of 2009, CR.A.No.632-DB of 2008 & CR.A.No.725-DB of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:25. 02.2014 CR.A.No.292-DB of 2009 Abdul Latif Adam Momin Appellant Versus Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation Respondent Present: M/s R.S.Bains & B.S.Sodhi, Advocates, for the appellant. M/s Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu & Y.K.Saxena, Advocates, for the respondent. CR.A.No.632-DB of 2008 Bhupal Man Damai @ Yusuf Nepali & another Appellants Versus State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. N.S.Swaitch, Advocate, for the appellants. M/s Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu & Y.K.Saxena, Advocates, for the respondent. CR.A.No.725-DB of 2008 State through Central Bureau of Investigation Appellant Versus Abdul Latif Adam Momin Respondent Present: M/s Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu & Y.K.Saxena, Advocates, for the appellant. M/s R.S.Bains & B.S.Sodhi, Advocates, for the respondent. Kumar Vimal 2014.02.25 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. F.A.O. No.1620 of 2014 Date of Decision :30. 06.2014 M/s Best on Health Ltd. and others ..Appellant (s) Versus M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent(s) II. F.A.O. No.2383 of 2014 M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. .....Appellant (s) Versus M/s Best on Health Ltd. and others .....Respondent(s) III. Civil Revision No.2837 of 2014 M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner (s) Versus M/s Best on Health Ltd. and others .....Respondent(s) CORAM : HONBLE MrJUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present : Mr.Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with Dr.Lalit Bhasin, Advocate, Ms.Nina Gupta, Advocate, Mr.Ranjan Jha, Advocate, Mr.Vibhav Jain, Advocate Kumar Paritosh for the appellant(s). 2014.07.02 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.1620 of 2014 and 2 connected cases 2 Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Vij, Advocate & Mr.Mukal Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent(s).1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?. Yes 2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CWP No.17785 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17785 of 2012 Reserved on:28. 05.2014 Date of decision:11. 07.2014 M/s. IAA Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and another ...Petitioner(s) Versus The Authorized Officer, UCO Bank and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anupam Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Nandini Nanda, Advocate, and Mr. Gautam Pathania, Advocate, for respondent No.1-UCO Bank. Mr. Karan Khehar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate, for respondent No.4.1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?. Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.1. The present judgment shall dispose of 3 writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 17785, 14741 and 15248 of 2012 since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. The facts are being taken from CWP No.177...
Tag this Judgment!