Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR620
Nirmal Singh, J.1. One of the important questions of law has been mooted in this appeal as to whether the non-proprietors who have been given the grazing rights in the shamlat deh are entitled to share in the compensation for the land which has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The facts are not disputed. The Chandigarh Administration vide Notification Nos. P-1/83/80 dated 7.4.1980 and P-1/80-87 dated 22.9.1980 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act had acquired 16.66 acres of land in village Dhanas, U.T. Chandigarh. The Collector assessed the value of the land and the same was deposited in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 38. The appellants i.e. non-proprietors filed the objections before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh that by virtue of the decree passed on 20.10.1952, the grazing rights have been reserved in their favour, therefore, they were entitled to the apportionment of the compensation i.e. 50-50 share which wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR22
Hemant Gupta, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for probate of Will dated 6.2.1993 executed by Mr. Paul Gill, annexed with the petition.2. Mr. Paul Gill, alias Darshan Singh Gill died on 08.02.1995. He had executed a Will dated 06.12.1993. The petitioner is named as executor and the beneficiary as per aforesaid Will.3. Notice of the petition was issued. Mr. Vikas Singh Gill son of Shri Paul Gill, respondent No. 2, filed written statement contesting the claim of the petitioner. It was pleaded that he is the only legal heir of deceased Paul Gill.4. On May 12, 2003, on the basis of reliance upon order of granting probate by the High Court of Justice. The District Probate Registry at Bristol vide order dated August 22, 1995, this court passed the order returning the original order dated August 22, 1995, with liberty to the petitioner to again file the aforesaid order after getting the same authenticated in accordance wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR416
Surya Kant, J.1. The petitioner has come up with a prayer for quashing of the orders dated 2.7.1997 (Annexure P-1) whereby his services were terminated, dated 31.12.2002 (Annexure P-2) denying him payment as a Sanskrit Teacher on the basis of his selection in the year 1998 and dated 2.1.2003 (Annexure P-3) conveying him the decision regarding rejection of his representation by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana for reinstatement, in service. The petitioner has also sought quashing of a letter dated 11.12.1998 (Annexure P-12) whereby he was intimated about the termination of his services by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana vide order dated 5.5.1997 and the communication thereof by District Education Officer (DEO) vide his Memo dated 2.7.1997. A direction has also been sought by the petitioner for his reinstatement in service. Alternatively, the petitioner seeks a direction to command the respondents to permit him to join back as the Sanskrit Teacher on the basis of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR487
M.M. Aggarwal, J.1. This petition was filed by Ajit Singh for quashing on the allegations that the charges had been framed against him and others vide order dated 11.4.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar. The petitioner had filed a civil suit and that suit was decided in his favour to the effect that he did not execute any mortgage deed. In the civil suit filed by him, it had been held that he did not take any loan nor had executed the mortgage deed, which was forged and fabricated document. The suit was decreed by the Civil Court on 26.11.1998 and therefore, the proceedings against him cannot continue.2. It appears that a case F.I.R. No. 33 dated 22.3.1997 under Sections 419/420/465/468/471/120-B IPC at P.S. City Muktsar had been registered. Vide order dated 11.4.2002 the C.J.M., Muktsar had directed the charges to be framed and then the following charges had been framed:'That you all entered into criminal conspiracy to defend (defraud) the Punjab Land Mortgage Bank,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2005P& H200; (2005)140PLR358
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.1. In this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioner has impugned order dated 7.9.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamal whereby application for leading secondary evidence in respect of agreement dated 13.10.1998 regarding sale of suit property has been declined.2. The plaintiff-petitioner, on 3.1.2002, filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 13.10,1998 and to execute and register sale-deed regarding 349 sq. yards of land in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of balance consideration of Rs.2,01,500/- and to hand over actual physical possession.3. The defendant-respondents in the written statement dated 21.5.2002 denied having entered into any agreement with the plaintiff for purchase of land in question and further averred that if the plaintiff was having any agreement to sell then the same is false, forged and fabricated.4. Thereupon, on 12.6.2002, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR501
M.M. Aggarwal, J.1. This petition had been filed against order dated 24.3.2003 of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak whereby order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class dated 26.11.2002 had been set aside and the Additional Sessions Judge had directed that the complaint shall proceed for offence under Sections 420/406/120-B and 506 I.P.C.2. The facts of the case had been that Sube Singh filed a complaint alleging that Daya Ram and others had entered into an unlawful assembly and hatched a conspiracy. Daya Ram had entered into an agreement to sell his 1/6th share. The sale was to be for Rs. 2 lacs a killa. On 21.8.2000, he had received Rs. 1 lac and then remaining amount Rs. 58,750/- was to be received at the time of registration of sale-deed. However, before 21.12.2000 i.e. the date of performance, Daya Ram had in connivance with other accused cheated the complainant by transferring his 1/6th share to accused Nos. 2 to 10 and accused No. 1 surrendered possession on 4.9.2000 in favour of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(P& H)86; [2005]277ITR80(P& H)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the appellant has prayed for determination of the following substantial questions of law :'(a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders annexures P-2 and P-4 are legally sustainable ?(b) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confirmation of the leviability of additional tax even though the total income returned was a loss is legally sustainable ?(c) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confirmation of the leviability of additional tax ignoring the mandate, as laid down in Modi Cement Ltd. v. Union of India [1992] 193 ITR 91 and Sati Oil Udyog Ltd. v. CIT is legally sustainable ?(d) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confirmation of the amount of additional tax imposed on the assessee-appellant is legally sustainable especially when the retrospective operation of the provision has been held to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2005P& H204; (2005)140PLR135
ORDERM.M. Kumar, J.1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 27.2.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kaithal declining the prayer made by the plaintiff-petitioner for examining the plaintiff Sachin in rebuttal on the ground that his father through whom the suit was filed as a natural guardian of Sachin (minor) has already been examined. The plaintiff-petitioner had already closed his evidence in affirmative in compliance of Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') and no right was reversed at that stage for examination of the minor on attaining majority. Even defendant-respondent has closed their evidence.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed suit for declaration claiming damages to the effect that the act and conduct of defendant respondent No. 1 in collusion with defendant-respondent No. 5 in not permitting the plaintiff-petitioner to attend the school w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR16
Hemant Gupta, J.1. This is a petition for grant of probate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act of the Will dated 4.12.1990 executed by Dr. (Mrs.) Sharda Jagdish w/o Late Dr. Jagdish Chander Khandpur.2. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is the only daughter of the testator and the executor appointed under the Will. Earlier, the deceased executed a registered Will dated 20.7.1988 in favour of her brother Shri Anand Uma Nath @ Anant U. Basrur but subsequently this Will was revoked vide registered deed of revocation dated 4.12.1990 and thereafter the deceased executed a registered Will in favour of the petitioner on 4.12.1990. It is also pleaded that there is no other heir, next of kin or relation likely to claim the property left by the deceased.3. Notice to the General Public was issued in 'The Tribune' (English Edition) and 'Dainik Tribune' (Hindi Edition). The said petition was contested by Shri Anant U. Basrur. It was the case of the said respondent that a duly regist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)139PLR795
Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The defendant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 15.11.2003 whereby defendant No. 1 was directed to produce document i.e. document granting legal sanction from the Government of India to hold property in India.2. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for declaration challenging the gift deeds dated 26.3.1964 and 28.4.1966 in favour of defendant No. 1 by their father Dr. Amar Nath Sood, the suit has been filed on 21.7.1997, when the case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff, an application was filed by him to the effect that defendant No. 1 in his written statement dated 17.7.1998 has mentioned that after migrating to New Zealand he relinquished Indian Citizenship and is having a valid passport from Government of New Zealand. It has further been stated that he is holding the property i.e. Bungalow No. 1098, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh in India after getting due legal sanction from the Government of India und...
Tag this Judgment!