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 : (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
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
This order shall dispose of a batch of 15 cases bearing CWP Nos.27156, 27228, 27810, 27829, 27836, 27887, 27915, 27930, 27964, 27966, 28114, 28135, 28214, 27326 and 27333 of 2013. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.27156 of 2013. The facts, as narrated in the petition, are that on 25.01.1997, the petitioner purchased wheat of Rs. 4,42,080/- from the Food Corporation of India, Sangrur (for short "FCI, Sangrur") in the open auction under the Open Market Sale Scheme. The petitioner is alleged to have paid the price of the wheat along with taxes, market fees and the Rural Development Fund (RDF) to the FCI, Sangrur, who had further paid the market fee and the RDF to the concerned Market Committee. The petitioner received a notice dated 11.11.1997, followed by another notice dated 15.05.1998, asking it to produce all the records regarding the transaction of purchase and sale of the wheat, to which the petitioner filed a reply on 25.09.1998 to resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
M. Jeyapaul, J. Introduction:- 1. a) Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Tribunal directing the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGI) to grant the benefit of Catch up Rule to the contesting private respondents herein, (PGI) has preferred these batch of Writ Petitions except Writ Petition No. 14450 of 2013 which has been filed by the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category employees. b) C.W.P. Nos. 10681 of 2013, 19302 of 2013, 19303 of 2013 and 19924 of 2013 relate to the claim made by the Senior Laboratory Technicians/Technical Assistant, CWP No. 19921 of 2013 by the Private Secretaries, CWP No. 25660 of 2013 by the Store Officer and the remaining Writ Petitions by the Nursing Establishment of the medical dispensation for grant of the benefit of Step up Rule enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Pleadings :- 2. a) The pleadings of the parties in the respective Original Applications are found to be quite identical in char...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Oral: 1. This is an avoidable and unfortunate litigation between son and father. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to order dated 07.10.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 3 and order dated 30.04.2015 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No. 4. I had the occasion to deal with almost the identical dispute in Ashwinder Singh and another vs. Bhagwant Singh and another, 2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil), 906. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant paragraphs:- "This unfortunate regular second appeal is a poignant reminder of decaying social values and traditions in our country. The case is telltale story of how children have become detached in today's commercialized world and are making attempts to throw out their aged parents from the property which the parents have acquired during their life- time. It is perfect example of children becoming insensate towards parents/senior citizens. "Maatru Devo Bhava" (revere your mother as God) and "Pitro Devo Bhava" (revere your father as God...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
The petitioners who are working as Tehsildars claim a right to be considered for promotions to the administrative service of the Haryana cadre from the feeder source which is generally constituted of the various officers such as Under Secretary, Deputy Secretaries, Sub Divisional Officers, Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Executive Magistrate(Tehsildar), Deputy Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, Additional Deputy Commissioner etc. Four sources of appointment are provided as per Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 2008 Rules) which may be extracted here below :- "Register A-I District Revenue Officers/Tehsildars Register A-II Members of Group C Service Register-B Direct recruitment as a result of the competitive examination held for Haryana Civil Service(Executive Branch). Register-C District Development and Panchayat Officers, Block Development and Panchayat Officers. The rules further clarify the manner of e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Hemant Gupta, J. 1. This order shall dispose of aforementioned two writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 5076 of 2012 and 5605 of 2013, raising identical question of law and facts. 2. The petitioners in CWP No. 5076 of 2012 were appointed as Clerks with the respondent - Bank in the year 1982. Pursuant to an FIR lodged in the year 1995 for the offences under Sections 420/120-B read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioners were convicted by the learned Special Judge on 27.05.1999. On the basis of such order of conviction, the petitioners were served with a show cause notice tentatively deciding to award the punishment of 'Dismissal from Service' in terms of para 19.6(a) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966. It is, thereafter, on 11.06.1999, an order of dismissal of service was passed against the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 27.05.1999. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court on 22...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Amit Rawal, J. 1.By this order, I intend to dispose of three F.A.O. Nos. 1531, 1532 and 1533 of 2010 as the common questions of law and facts involved in all the three appeals are the same. The facts are being taken from FAO No. 1531 of 2010. 2. This is a classical case where the objects and the reasons, preceding the proclamation of Act No. 26 of 1996, which provided that the arbitration procedure should be fair, efficient and the role of the Courts should be minimal in the arbitration proceedings, have been thrown to the wind and is analogous to the procedure being followed in a Civil Court, inasmuch as that the dispute between the parties to the lis has arisen out of execution of an agreement to sell dated 1.10.2002. Thus, in my view, the intention of the Legislature in its wisdom, though had proclaimed vide Act No. 26 of 1996, minimising the role of the Court and as well as expeditious disposal/resolution of the disputes through arbitration, has not been achieved. In order to appre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the impugned order dated 22.7.2013 (Annexure P-1), whereby the application filed by petitioner-defendant No. 1 for striking out of the amendment caused by the respondent-plaintiff in pursuance to the order dated 8.5.2013 passed by the trial Court, has been dismissed. 2. Mr. Vijay Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-defendant No. 1 submits that in pursuance to the receipt of the summons of the suit for injunction filed on 6.2.2012, defendant No. 1 disclosed that the property had already been sold to M/s. HR Equipment Pvt. Ltd. vide sale deed dated 7.3.2012. It is in these circumstances, the respondent-plaintiff moved the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Annexure P-5). The said application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 8.5.2013. Without moving separate application for amendment of the plaint, respondent-plaintiff incorporated the relief of declaration in the h...
Tag this Judgment!