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 : AIR1969P& H12; [1968]22STC335(P& H)
Mahajan, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India. In this petition, the validity of certain provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act), as amended by Punjab General Sales Tax (Haryana Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 (hereinafter called the Amendment Act) is called in question.2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and carries on business of purchase and sale of cotton at Hansi. Prior to the 1st of Novemeber, 1966, Hansi was part of Punjab State (hereinafter referred to as the Old Punjab). After the reorganisation of the Punjab by the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (Act No. 31 of 1966) from the appointed day, that is the Ist of November, 1966, the territory of the Old Punjab was divided to form the State of Haryana, the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the State of Punjab (New Punjab) and part of the territories were transferred to Himachal Pradesh.3. The Reorganisation Act, in S. 2, defines 'Old ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2001P& H86
A.S. Garg, J.1. The general elections to the Haryana Assembly were scheduled to be held in January/February, 2000. The petitioner Shri Hari Singh Nalwa, claimed that he was a Congress nominee for Assembly Election relating to 18- Smalkha Assembly Constituency. District Panipat. Respondent No. 1 Shri Kartar Singh Bhadana was a nominee of the 'Lok Dal' for the said constituency. The rest of the respondents were the other candidates who had filed their nomination pipers. The election was actually held on 22.2.2000. Respondent No. 1 was declared elected as he secured 37,174 votes.2. Now the petitioner has brought the present Election Petition challenging the election of respondent No. 1 by setting up a case that he got the highest number of valid votes and since respondent No. I was not qualified to be a candidate his nomination papers should have been rejected, and therefore, the election of respondent No. 1 be set aside being illegal and unconstitutional and the petitioner be declared as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1985P& H244
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.1. Briefly the facts are that Shri Hardwari Lal respondent No. 2 was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the University) on 27th October, 1977 for a period of three years by the Chancellor, respondent No. 1, exercising the powers under statute 4(6) of the First Statutes of the University contained in the Schedule to the Maharshi Dayanand University Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a promise that his term would be renewed for a similar period. The Chancellor did not renew the term as promised by him. Therefore, the respondent filed Civil Writ Petn. No. 3658 of 1980 for mandamus that the Chancellor be directed to renew the second term inter alia on the ground of promissory estoppel. The Court accepted the writ petition on 16th September, 1981 on the ground that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was attracted and directed the Chancellor to renew the term of the respondent for a period...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2007P& H118
S.S. Saron, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendants- petitioners against the order dated 16.11.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr Divn), Malerkotla whereby the plaintiffs-respondents have been allowed to examine a handwriting expert in their rebuttal evidence to prove documents, the onus of proof of which was on them. 2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants-petitioners from dispossessing them from the land measuring 142 Bighas 10 Biswas, as detailed in the head note of the plaint situated in village Bhoodan, Tehsil Malerkotla, forcibly, illegally and without due process of law; besides for restraining the defendants-petitioners from alienating by way of sale, mortgage, exchange, gift or in any other manner the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs-respondents, in their rebuttal evidence, prayed for examination of a handwriting expert. It was submitted by the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1972]85ITR422(P& H)
1. In order to appreciate the answers which we propose to give to the questions referred to us, it would be proper to set out the relevant undisputed facts in the chronological order. For a proper understanding of the facts, a short genealogical table of the parties may be stated : Mehtab Shah Jaini | _____________________________________________ | | | | Muni Lal Moti Lal Bhim Sen Hans Raj (1) (2) (3) (4) ________|______________ _|______________ |___ | | | | | | | | Manohar Roshan Tilak Dharam Shadi Madan Joginder Sat Lal Lal Chand pal Lal Lal pal pal (5) (7) (9) (11) (6) (8) (10) (12)2. All these members of the family of Mehtab Shah have been given numerical numbers for facility of reference as the narration of facts will show. The four sons of Mehtab Shah Nos. 1 to 4 constituted a joint Hindu family at the time when the Income-tax Act, 1918, was in force. In the year 1932, after the coming into force of the 1922 Act, these four sons effected a partition whereby the joint Hindu fami...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1983P& H70
S.S. Sandawalia, C.J.1. The larger question that looms in this set of three Civil Writ Petitions is--whether a writ of certiorari lies against a privately owned and privately managed Medical College and Hospital? Inevitably, at issue is the validity of the somewhat wide ranging observations in this context by the Division Bench in Karan Singh v. Kurukshetra University, ILR (1976) 2 Punj & Har 859. Equally significant is the question--whether private institutions imparting higher medical education are instrumentalities or agencies of the State--which had also come to the force in the hearing of this reference of the Full Bench.2. The terra firma of the factual matrix giving rise to the aforesaid issues (which are otherwise pristinely legal) may be taken from the averments in C. W. P. No. 3480 of 1981(Gurpeet Singh v. Punjab University etc. The Managing Society of the Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital--respondent No. 2, is admittedly a private institution registered under the Societ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2000)125PLR224
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Whether the decision of the Medical Council of India (for short, the Council) to deny registration to the petitioners under the India Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is legally correct and justified is the question which arises for determination in these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. For the sake of brevity, we deem it proper to refer to the facts of C.W.P. No. 12011 of 1998.3. After passing 10+2 examination in Medical stream, the petitioners joined one year language course at Tashkent (Uzbekistan) during the academic session 1991-92 because the passing of that course was a condition precedent for admission to the medical course in any of the Universities of the erstwhile U.S.S.R. After passing the language course, the petitioners joined M.D. (General Medicine) in the Section Tashkent State Medical Institute. Tashkent (for short, 'the Institute') in the year 1992. The duration of that course was 6 y...
Tag this Judgment!