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
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!