Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-10-1999
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2496
1. This appeal and the connected Criminal Appeal No. 78-SB of 1988 'Balwan v. State of Haryana' arise out of same judgment of the learned trial Court and common questions of fact and law are involved therein. So, this order will dispose of both these appeals. 2. For an occurrence which took place on the night intervening 8/9-6-1987 in village Gari Sampla, the appellants in the two appeals along with their co-accused Balwan and Barketu were sent up to face their trial for offences punishable under sections 302/324/323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide his judgment dated 8-1-1988 acquitted Barketu and Rattan but convicted Balraj for an offence punishable under section 304, Part II and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal and Balwan under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide separate order dated 11-1-1988, Balraj-appellant was sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment and was ordered to pay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-07-1999
Reported in : [1999]97CompCas675(P& H); (1999)122PLR116
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. This is an appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1956 Act'), against the order dated January 22, 1998, passed by the learned company judge dismissing Company Application No. 46 of 1998 filed by the appellant under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act') in Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Haryana Telecom Ltd. (Company Petition No. 147 of 1997). 2. The facts necessary for deciding the issue raised in this appeal are that Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. (hereinafter described as 'the respondent') filed a petition under sections 433, 434 and 439 of the 1956 Act for winding up of Haryana Telecom Ltd. (hereinafter described as 'the appellant'), on the ground that the appellant (non-petitioner before the learned company judge) is commercially insolvent and is unable to discharge its liability to pay off the admitted debts in terms of the demand made by the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-08-1999
Reported in : (1999)IILLJ455P& H; (1999)121PLR572
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J. 1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders which are Annexed as P. 7, P. 9 and P. 11. 2. The original petitioner Satpal Singh who died during the pendency of this writ petition joined as a constable in the Police Department of Haryana on September 1, 1974. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1988. In the year 1990, the petitioner suffered Kidney trouble and he underwent treatment during 1990-91. Though he applied for leave, the same was not sanctioned and, therefore, he was proceeded against for absence from duty and an inquiry was held but that enquiry was not concluded by the Enquiry Officer since the petitioner was dismissed from service on October 18, 1991 on the charge of his absence during 1990. Against the order of his dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was partly allowe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-08-1999
Reported in : (1999)122PLR14
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. The Indian Oil Corporation is the assessee. It has filed these five writ petitions to question the validity of five assessment orders relating to the years 1984-85 to 1988-89. The short question that calls for examination is - does the Corporation sell a cylinder (used for the supply of liquefied petroleum gas) to the consumer when it accepts refundable deposit by way of security The Assessing Authority has held that the security is the sale consideration. The assessee has filed the present petitions to challenge the impugned orders. 2. According to the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 the taxable event is the 'sale'. According to section 2(h) (as it stood prior to amendment), sale means 'any transfer of property in goods other than goods specified in Schedule 'C' for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration'. Thus, the only issue that arises for consideration is does the property in the good - cylinders and regulators in the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-14-1999
Reported in : (1999)122PLR194
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This petition has been filed for quashing the orders Annexures P.1, P.3 and P.4 passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, the Chief Administrator and the Adviser to the Administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh under Rules 13(iii) and 22 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules').2. The petitioner and his co-bidder were allotted commercial site No. 61 on 17.9.1980 by the Chandigarh Administration on lease hold basis for a premium of Rs. 1,84,000/- in view of the highest bid given by them at the auction held on 3.8.1980. In terms of clause 5 of the letter of allotment, they were required to pay ground rent at the rate of Rs. 4,600/- per annum along with instalments of premium. After taking possession of the site by paying 25% of the premium, the petitioner and his co-allottees constructed the building. They paid other dues but did not pay ground rent for the years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. Therefore, proceedings under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-15-1999
Reported in : [1999]237ITR93(P& H)
N.K. Agrawal, J. 1. These are references made by the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (the 'Tribunal') under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act'), one at the instance of the assessee and the other on the request of the Revenue, seeking opinion of this Court on the following questions of law for the asst. yr. 1981-82 : (a) Questions at the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that expenses of Rs. 1,43,837 incurred on 'Sample designing' in the context of the assessee's export business, are manufacturing expenses within the meaning of the Expln. 2 to s. 35B(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Expln. 2 has been properly interpreted/construed by the Tribunal in withholding legitimate weighted deduction under s. 35B(1)(b)(i) on sample designing, which has otherwise been allowed as a business expense in computing the total income of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-22-1999
Reported in : 1999CriLJ1972; (1999)123PLR648
ORDER1. This is a revision petition under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) challenging the appellate order dated Dec. 1, 1987 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby compensation amounting to Rs. 250/- was ordered to be paid by each accused to the persons who had received injuries in the incident. 2. The six petitioners faced trial in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. They were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment of offences under Sections 148, 324/149, 325/149 and 326/149, Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were also sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250/- each for the offence under Section 326/149, IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Fine was imposed in addition to the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 326/149, IPC. 3. The accused persons went in appeal against the order of conviction and sentence. The learned Sessions Judge, in appeal filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-22-1999
Reported in : 1999CriLJ2083
V.K. Bali, J. 1. Whereas, Sukhbir, Dharambir and Rajesh alias Pappu, real brothers, who have since been held guilty under S. 302 read with S. 34 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months, for having intentionally committed the murder of Jaideep as also under S. 324 read with S. 34, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three months for having caused injuries to Jaivir, vide order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat dated March 5, 1998, through present appeal filed by them seek setting aside of the said order, Jot Ram, complainant, who has preferred Crl. Revision No. 442 of 1998 and which revision has been ordered to be heard along with Crl. Appeal No. 140-DB of 1998 seeks more deterrent punishment to the appellants as also compensation on account of death of Jaideep and injuries sustained by Jaivir. 2. Before, however, the rival contentions for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-10-1999
Reported in : [1999]97CompCas846(P& H)
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Vide two different orders of the same date i.e., October 3, 1996, passed in Company Petition No. 112 of 1996 and Company Petition No. 113 of 1996, M/s. Highway Cycle Industries was permitted to put to its shareholders and creditors the scheme of arrangement in furtherance of the provisions of sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The scheme of arrangement proposed provided that as a measure of corporate reconstruction and to provide the base for further growth and with an object to carry on the business with focused attention and more profitably, it was decided to transfer the unit of Sunbeam Castings of M/s. Highway Cycle Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor-company') to M/s. Sunbeam Auto Limited, a growing concern (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferee-company'). The detailed terms and conditions of the proposal were specified in annexures E/5 to the respective petitions. In accord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-10-1999
Reported in : (1999)121PLR531
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Vide two different orders of the same date, i.e., 3 October, 1996, passed in Company Petition No. 112 of 1996 and Company Petition No. 113 of 1996, M/s. Highway Cycle Industries was permitted to put to its shareholders and creditors the scheme of arrangement in furtherance of the provisions of sections. 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The scheme of arrangement as proposed provided that as a measure of corporate reconstruction and to provide the base for further growth and with an object to carry on the business with focused attention and more profitably, it was decided to transfer the unit of Sunbeam Castings of M/s. Highway Cycle Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor-company') to M/s. Sunbeam Auto Limited, a growing concern (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferee-company'). The detailed terms and conditions of the proposal were specified in Annexures E/5 to the respective petitions. In a...
Tag this Judgment!