Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2004)138PLR126
Hemant Gupta, J.1. The plaintiff is in revision petition against the order passed by the learned trial Court whereby the defendant-respondent was permitted to amend the written statement filed by his mother Mukhtiar Kaur.2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of l/3rd share of suit land against his mother. Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff but before the Court could pass a decree on the basis of such admission, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur died. The respondent herein is his son impleaded as her legal representative who filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for withdrawing the admission written statement filed on behalf of Mukhtiar Kaur alleging therein that the plaintiff has manipulated admission of defendant fraudulently and against the interest of Mukhtiar Kaur. It was also alleged that Mukhtiar Kaur could not make this admission and such admissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)150PLR439
Hemant Gupta, J.1. The petitioner is a former Judge of this Court, now represented by his wife andhter. The challenge in the present writ petition is to declare the proviso to Para 2 (b) of Part III of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service Act), 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') which fixes the maximum limit of pension of a retired Judge of a High Court, as ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary and discriminatory. 2. The petitioner joined Punjab Civil Services (Judicial) on 25.4.1951. He was promoted as Additional District Judge on 12.11.1969 and elevated as a Judge of this Court on 2.2.1983. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 15.10.1987. 3. The case of the petitioner is that Para 2 (b) of Part III of First Schedule of the Act provides for special additional pension of Rs. 1600/-per annum in respect of each completed year of service for pension but maximum limit is Rs. 8000/-per annum. Apa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CWP No.8291 of 1994. 1 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH. *** CWP No.8291 of 1994. Date of decision: September, 2013. *** M/S Nu-Tech Solvex ...Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others. ...Respondents *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON. *** 1. Whether the Judgment be reported?.2. Whether the judgment be shown to the reporter.3. Whether a copy of the judgment be given to the reporter. Present: Shri Rajiv Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rajiv Kwatra, Sr. D.A.G. Haryana, for the Respondents. *** DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, J1 By way of this petition, writ in the nature of certiorari is sought by the petitioner for setting aside order dated 28.4.1994 (Annexure P-7) vide which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and consequently benefit of sales tax exemption under the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules.) was denied to the petitioner. CWP No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : IIIInd.Cas.484
Lal Chand, J.1. The facts are given in full in the order referring the case to a Division Bench for decision. The suit is for custody of wife, and, when instituted on 26th October 1005, was valued at Rs, 510 for the purposes of jurisdiction under the rules then in force. It was dismissed under Section 97, Civil Procedure Code, on 6th December 1905, and was re-admitted on 4th -January 1906. On 19th January 1900 the plain, was returned for amending the names of certain defendants, and the amended plaint was re-filed on 22nd January 1906, valuing the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 520.2. Meanwhile the rule relating to valuation of such suits had been superseded and a new rule fixing the valuation of such suits at Rs. 1,000 for purposes of jurisdiction was issued with the sanction of the Local Government on 4th December 1905.3. The question raised is, whether under the circumstances, a further appeal is admissible in the case as of right under Section 40, Punjab Courts Act. We fe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1948P& H49
Achhru Ram, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two cross-appeate Nos. R.F.A. 115 and 116 of 1948. These appeals have arisen under the following circumstances.2. Madho Parshaa, the father of Ram Kishan defendant 1 in the suit out of which these appeal have arisen and husband of Mt. Chhoti defendant 2, and Khushi Ram, the father of Om Parkash and. Hari Parkaeh defendants 3 and 2 and husband of Mt. Pan Bai defendant 5, were members of a joint Hindu family. Khushi Ram was a son of Madho Parshad from another wife Mt. Bbagirthi but was adopted as a son by Mani Ram, the real brother of the aforesaid Madho Parshad, Manj Ram fend Madho Parshad being the sons of Sham Lal and grandsons of one Gopal Chand. The family originally belonged to the village Eanod also called lohindargarbr in Patiala State. Gopal ChanS, the grand-father of Madho Parshad, migrated Jo Delhi and set up business there under the nasie and style of Gopal Chand Sham Lai. Rttev the death of Gopal Gband, the business was carried ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H51
Achhru Ram, J.1. This is a second appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge of Ludhiana reversing on appeal the decision of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Ludhiana who had granted the plaintiff a decree declaring that sale of the suit land by his father Sher Singh in favour of Dewa Singh defendant by means of sale-deed dated 20th November 1936 should not affect his reversionary rights after the vendor's death except to the extent of Rs. 900 and dismis-sing the plaintiff's suit.2. On 29th August 1930 the aforesaid Sher Singh mortgaged the suit land to the father of Bhagat Singh and Jagir Singh defendants for Rs. 900 In certain execution proceedings that had been taken by Dewa Singh against Mangal Singh, the father of Sher Singh, the latter had become liable as a surety. By means of sale, deed dated 20th November 1936 the land that had been mortgaged by Sher Singh in 1930 to the father of Bhagat Singh and Jagir Singh defendants was sold to Dewa Singh for a sum of Rs. 1500. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H139
Teja Singh, J.1. Jhabar Mai Chokham, who claims to be one of the shareholders and creditors of the Punjab Pictures Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, applied to this Court under Sections 162, and 176, Companies Act for having the company wound up and for appointment of a Provisional Liquidator. The record shows that the petition was prepared and signed by the petitioner on 5th December, but was actually instituted in this Court on the 8th. It came up before a learned Judge in the presence of the petitioner's counsel on the 9th and the following order was made:Praya that at least a month's time be granted as he wishes to put in further material to complete the petition. To come up after the winter vacation.The Court remained closed first for X-mas vacation and then for the winter vacation from 24th December 1947 to 15th February 1948, both days inclusive and reopened on 16th February. On 25th February, the petitioner put in an affidavit and produced a few do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1041
Ram Lall, C.J.1. The following two questions have been referred to a F.B. for decision:1. Whether when proceedings are submitted by a Ses. J. to the H. C. before 15-8-1947 under Section 374, Cr. P.C. for confirmation of a sentence of death passed by him, the Lahore H, C. has Jurisdiction to deal with the case, irrespective of the fact that the offence was committed & the trial held in territories comprised in the East Punjab Province?2. Whether the appeal filed: (a) by the convict sentenced to death, & (b) by co-accused who were sentenced to a lower penalty but notice of enhancement of sentence was served on them before 15-8-1947 by the Lahore H. C; can be heard & decided only by the said Ct.?2. The reference arose in the following circumstances : One Bashir Ahmad was arrested at Jullundur on 8-3-1947 in connection with a murder said to have been committed on the same day at Jullundur. The learned Ses. J. tried him at Jullundur & convicted & sentenced him to death on 2-7-1947. On 11-7-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H165
Achhru Ram, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Lahore, affirming, on appeal, the decision of a Subordinate Judge of Delhi refusing to stay the suit brought by respondent 1 against the appellants and respondent 2 for a declaration to the effect that the agreement dated 14th July 1942, executed between respondent 1 and the appellants was invalid and unenforceable on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, and for cancellation of the aforesaid agreement as well as for recovery of a sum Of Rs. 2,50,000.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated as follows: The Board of trustees of the Hindu College, Delhi, wanted to construct a hostel for the College on the land allotted to the said College by the University of Delhi in what is called 'the University Town.' On 3rd May 1940, they requisitioned the services of Messrs. Master Sathe and Bhuta, a firm of architects, carrying on business in New Delhi, for prepa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H53
Achhru Ram, J.1. The facts of this case have been stated at length in my order of reference dated 16th March 1948 and need not be recapitulated. The dispute in this case relates to a one-half undivided share in 142 kanals and 16 marlas of land situate in the village Jandwala in Muktsar tahsil, Ferozpure district. This land was originally occupied by one Baghela as a tenant under Guru Amar Singh, the father of Guru Harnam Singh plaintiff. In the revenue records he was described as a non-occupancy tenant of the aforesaid land. However, after his death, in a suit brought by him to contest the validity of a notice of ejectment, served at the instance of the aforesaid Guru Amar Singh, on him and his two nephews Fazal Din and Fateh Din, the sons of his deceased brother Allu. Wasal, son of the aforesaid Baghela, succeeded in establishing that the aforesaid Baghela was in fact an occupancy tenant under Section 5(c), Punjab Tenancy Act, of the land mentioned above. On this finding the aforesaid...
Tag this Judgment!