Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. This order will dispose of. R.F.A. Nos. 3120 to 3134, 3877 to 3890, 4075 to 4078, 4144, 4796 to 4799, 5432, 5442, 6040 to 6043, 6894, 7539, 7540 of 2011; RFA Nos. 1344 to 1403, 3161 to 3200, 3312 to 3314, 4035 to 4038, 4726, 4836, 4841, 4941 to 4992, 4996 to 5059, 5253 to 5257, 5449 to 5502, 6545 of 2012; RFA Nos. 421, 422, 441, 469, 1667, 2643 to 2666, 2868, 3357 to 3359, 3508, 3509, 3784 to 3787, 3822 to 3827, 3879 to 3882, 4040, 4041, 4113 to 4117, 4226 to 4238, 4250 to 4254, 4396, 4447, 4499, 4503, 4513, 5035 to 5038, 5044 to 5068, 5080, 5081, 5087, 5412, 5671, 5739, 5740, 5792 to 5798, 5842, 6189, 6192, 6519, 6533, 7075, 7077, 7278, 7505 to 7550, 7698 to 7761, 7885, 7886, 8002 of 2013; RFA Nos. 62 to 69, 208, 781 to 783, 1025 to 1028, 1266, 1423, 1596, 1597, 1604 to 1606, 1621 to 1624, 2113, 2141, 2173, 2196, 2235 to 2240, 2437, 2438, 2466 to 2520, 2532, 2820 to 2822, 3112, 3281, 3282, 3339, 3340, 3416, 3417, 3683, 4384 to 4386, 5001, 5239, 5240, 5258, 5376 to 5397, 5972, 6498 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. This order will dispose of writ petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India bearing CWP No. 4016 of 2014 titled 'Satyabir Goyal v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others' wherein petitioner was allegedly found indulging in theft of electricity by way of direct supply u/c, CWP No. 10118 of 2014 titled 'Navin Kokcha v. State of Haryana and others' wherein on checking meter of the petitioner was found without T.C. Seal as well as MCB, CWP No. 17229 of 2014 titled 'Mahender Raj Gupta v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others' wherein petitioner was found taking direct supply from Hisar L.T. line using two core PVC cables for the purpose of construction work, CWP No. 23163 of 2013 titled 'Kuldeep Singh v. DHBVNL and another' wherein sanctioned load to the petitioner was 1.200 KW, however, during checking actual load at the site was found to 3.723 KW and both MandP lead seals were found to be tampered with and CWP No. 24864 of 2013 titled 'Mangal v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. Challenge in the present writ petition is for quashing of the order/letter dated 15.12.2014 (P-16) whereby the earlier communication dated 24.11.2014 (P-14) demanding deposit of 25% of the total sale consideration along with other charges issued in compliance of the order dated 13.10.2014 (P-12) permitting transfer of 3426 sq. yards of residential area in possession passed by the respondent - Tehsildar (Sales), Faridabad has been withdrawn. 2. In brief, undisputed facts of the case are that two parcels of land total measuring 7.79 acres, first parcel being known as factory building along with land (combined area measuring 4.17 acres) and second parcel being residential complex consisting of 4 Bungalows over a piece of land measuring 3.62 acres i.e. 17562 sq. yards was leased out to M/s Indian Hardware Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) by the Government of India for a period of five years as per Memorandum of Agreement dated 23.09.1954 (P-1). Government o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. This intra Court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed against the judgment dated 23.02.2012 of the learned Single Judge, whereby, CWP No.8210 of 2011 filed by the respondent seeking quashing of order dated 01.02.2011 (Annexure P-17) declining the petitioner's request to exercise the second pension option and thereby denying him pensionary benefits, has been allowed. The respondent was appointed as Security Officer in the appellant-Bank on 01.01.1985. Thereafter, he worked at various places and offices of the appellant Bank. On 01.07.2009 (Annexure P-2), he submitted a request for resignation from Bank service stating that in the past one year his service in the Bank had not been worthwhile. He had stated that due to his continuous ill health he had been allowed leave by the Bank, but had not been paid four months salary despite his repeated requests. He stated that though he had intended to work in the Bank after his recovery, but the Bank...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. Dispute as to termination arose on January 06, 2011 when the services of respondent-Anita Kumari were illegally terminated by the management. She had been appointed as a Helper on March 02, 2009. Anita Kumari approached the Labour Court after raising a dispute and serving a demand notice upon the management and on the expiration of 45 days [of service of demand notice on the labour conciliation officer] she took recourse to the amended provision in section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act") by approaching the Labour Court-III, Faridabad. Anita Kumari had earlier to the period in question worked intermittently with the management in 2007 and 2008 and had suffered two termination orders before she was appointed on March 02, 2009 as an Apprentice (Learner), a post not covered under the Apprentices Act, 1961 ("1961 Act") because it was so stated by the management itself in the appointment letter Ex.M-10 at Annexure P-1 with the paper book. The duration of the appre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
S.S. Saron, J. 1. Mr D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate has filed CM application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC' - for short) for impleading Parneet Kaur Grover as a party to the appeal. The CM is supported by an affidavit of Gina Kaur Gill (appellant No. 1). The same is taken on record. 2. Registry to number the C.M. 3. Parneet Kaur Grover is impleaded and added as respondent No. 8 to the appeal. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the request of the Court keeping in view the deadline of 30.9.2015 fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for finalising admissions to Medical/BDS Colleges, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma Senior Advocate with Mr Vishal Sodhi Advocate has put in appearance for respondents No. 3 and 4; Mr G.S. Bal Senior Advocate with Mr Deepak Gupta Advocate has put in appearance for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Brar Advocate has put in appearance for the added respondent No. 8 Parneet Kaur Grover. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at full length. 7....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1.The present petition has been filed for winding up of the respondent company on the plea that it had failed to pay its admitted debt. 2. It is pleaded that the petitioner company having business interest in music, besides other things had obtained licence from the Government of India to broadcast FM Radio in the City of Hissar. Agreement was executed between the petitioner company and the respondent company on 11.9.2006 granting licence to the respondent company for broadcasting sound recording in which the petitioner company had a copy right. The aforesaid agreement was replaced by another agreement dated 22.5.2007. It was for a period of three years at an annual licence fee of L 22,000,00/-. The amount was to be paid in equal monthly instalments. On failure to pay three instalments, the petitioner/licenser was within its rights to cancel/terminate the licence and in that eventuality, the respondent company was liable to pay the entire balance licence fee for the remaining period. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
S.J. Vazifdar, Actg.CJ. 1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 02.05.2014 issued by respondent No.1-Authority for Advance Rulings under Section 245-R of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and for consequential reliefs restraining respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax from initiating proceedings or taking any coercive action in relation to the matter to be considered by respondent No.1 under section 245-R(4) of the Act. The petitioner has also sought an order declaring that the transaction in question is not designed for avoidance of tax and directing that the consideration paid by the petitioner and received by its seller is not taxable and therefore, the petitioner was not required to withhold the tax in respect of such consideration. Lastly, the petitioner has sought an order remanding the matter to respondent No.1 for consideration of its application on merits. The application for remand was, however, not pressed and we were invit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 85 appeals bearing ITA Nos. 200, 201, 232 to 255, 271 to 273, 283 to 298, 303 to 308, 310 to 316, 332 to 334, 356 to 358 and 361 of 2013, 10 to 16, 25, 26, 73, 74, 90, 110, 136, 191, 192, 253, 254, 278 and 398 of 2014, as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that common substantial questions of law are involved therein in all these appeals. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No.200 of 2013. 2. ITA No.200 of 2013 has been preferred by the appellant-assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 29.7.2013 passed under Section 254(1) of the Act by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh 'B' Bench, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in ITA No.448/Chd/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. On 30.5.2014, these appeals were admitted which raise the following substantial questions of law:- (i) "Whether the transactions in hand envisage a "transfer" e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
S.J. Vazifdar, Actg. CJ. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reversing the order of the CIT (Appeals). The matter pertains to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(I) Whether the Tribunal rightly held that the appellant was not entitled to the deductions in respect of cash payments in excess of Rs. 20,000/- made to the vendors for land in view of Section 40A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). (II) Whether the Tribunal rightly upheld the addition of an amount of Rs. 7,76,043/- made on account of the appellant not charging interest from his debtors." Re: Question No. 1 3. The appellant is engaged inter alia in trading in properties in his individual name. As noted in the assessment order, during the course of assessment proceedings, the details of the closing stock as on 31.03.2009 alongwith details of sales/purchases were placed on record. The consideration, which i...
Tag this Judgment!