Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1999P& H156; (1999)121PLR54
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Whether she jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised for relieving the petitioners of their obligation to pay the amount of premium along with interest and ground rent in accordance with the provisions of Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) and the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Rules) and the terms and conditions of allotment is the main issue which arises for adjudication in these petitions filed primarily for the purpose of restraining the respondents from realising the amount due from the petitioners although the drafting of petitions has been so articulated as to give an impression that the failure of the respondents to discharge their duty to provide amenities has deprived the petitioners of full use and enjoyment of the commercial properties of which they secured leases by agreeing to p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2003]117CompCas660(P& H)
J.S. Khehar, J.1. The respondents (herein) on the basis of a dispute, which had arisen between them and the appellants, filed Company Petition No. 76 of 1999 before the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi, under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 praying for relief on account of alleged oppression/mismanagement at the hands of the appellants. During the course of the proceedings before the Company Law Board, the appellants, on 24.08.1999, sought permission of the Company Law Board to move an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Arbitration Act 1996') for reference (of the controversy raised by the respondents in Company Petition No. 76 of 1999) to arbitration. On the aforesaid request, the Company Law Board granted the appellant time up to 04.09.1999 to move an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. No such application was, however, filed within the allotted time. After all effor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2002]128STC116(P& H)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This is a petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the Industrial Policy, 1996 and the Industrial Incentive Code, 1996 and grant sales tax deferment to the petitioner on the total production. The other prayer made in the petition is to direct the respondents to withdraw the notices issued to the petitioner for non-filing of the sales tax returns and to refund the excess sales tax deposited during the quarters ending in June, 1999 and September, 1999.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is en-gaged in the manufacture of soaps, fatty oils, stearic acids, glycerine etc, In the year1998, the petitioner made expansion at its existing factory in village Jaladiwal, Tehsil Rajkot, District Ludhiana by making fixed term investment of Rs. 1200.78 lacs, After expansion, the commercial production was started on 31st March, 1999. The Genera! Manager, District Industries Centre, Ludhia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2005]124CompCas201(P& H); (2004)4CompLJ288(P& H); [2004]55SCL165(Punj& Har)
J.S. Khehar, J.I. Facts pertaining to M/s. PGF Limited:1. M/s. PGF Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the PGFL') was originally incorporated on 19-1-1983 as Pearls General Finance Limited. Its name was changed to Pearls Green Forests Limited in 1988 and finally to PGF Limited in 1997. Eversince the commencement of business, PGF Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the PGFL') claims to be subject to regulation, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, under the Department of Company Affairs, the Company Law Board, and the Registrar of Companies. PGFL has its registered office at S.C.O. No. 1042-43, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, and its Head Office at 2nd Floor, Vaishali Building, Community Centre, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.2. So far the activities of PGFL are concerned, the same have been depicted in a communication addressed by the PGFL to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the SEBI') dated 15-1-1990. PGFL is stated to be operating two kinds of sch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2006)144PLR222
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. This Judgment will dispose of the aforesaid five writ petitions (C.W.P. Nos.5036 of 1997, 3596 of 1997, 5551 of 1997, 15748 of 1998 and 2795 of 1998) as common questions of law are involved in all the aforesaid writ petitions. The basic issues raised in all the aforesaid writ petitions are identical. We have, therefore, made reference to the detailed pleadings as contained in the case of M/s Trishul Industries (C.W.P. No. 5036 of 1997). Reference to additional facts from other writ petitions have been made whilst noticing the submissions of the learned Counsel.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm having its registered office in New Delhi. Inspired by the declaration and open policy of the Government of Haryana to develop tourism in the State, its progressive economic policy and liberalization, the petitioner-firm conceived a project of establishing a restaurant and resort hotel, in the area forming part of revenue estate of village Shekhopur, District Gurgaon. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2002]128STC146(P& H)
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for striking down Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 4 of the Punjab General Sales Tax (Deferment and Exemption) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'the 1991 Rules') and for quashing the condition imposed by the prescribed authority in the exemption certificate, annexure P2, requiring it to maintain separate accounts of existing units and expansion units.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of acrylic fibre and is registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, 'the 1948 Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the 1956 Act'). In January, 1993, the petitioner was granted sales tax exemption to the tune of Rs. 333 crores spread over a period of seven years in terms of Industrial Policy, 1992, in respect of the industrial units set up at Village Harkishanpura, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2002]128STC466(P& H)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of the following substantive relief :'It is therefore respectfully prayed that appropriate writ or direction be issued that the condition imposed on deferment certificate of benefit of tax is on incremental basis be quashed and it be held that this condition cannot be imposed on units claiming tax benefits under Rule 6.3 read with Rule 2.5 of Rules known as Punjab Industrial Incentive Code under the Industrial Policy, 1996. Further Rule 4 of Punjab General Sales Tax (Deferment and Exemption) Rules, 1991 it be declared is not applicable to such cases ; if applicable the same be struck down as ultra vires Section 30A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and Rule 6.3 read with Rule 2.5 of the Rules and Government policy as notified on June 1, 1996 and March 20, 1996.'2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of di-calcium phospha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)139PLR238
Surya Kant, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 4328 and 4345 of 2002, as not only common questions of facts and law are involved in these two Appeals but both have been directed against the same judgment and decree dated 30.4.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar and affirmed by the learned District Judge, Ropar vide his judgment and decree dated 26.7.2002. Needless to say that these Appeals have originated out of Civil Suit No. 65 of 2001 filed by Dasmesh Educational Society (Regd.).2. Facts are being taken from R.S.A. No. 4328 of 2002.3. The material facts emanating the cause of action as mentioned in the plaint are that the Dasmesh Educational Society (Regd.) (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1) instituted the Civil Suit No. 65 of 2001 against (i) the State of Punjab through its Secretary, Housing, (ii) Punjab Housing Urban Development Board through its Vice Chairman, (iii) Punjab Urban Development Authority thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)150CTR(P& H)548; [1999]235ITR679(P& H)
N.K. Agrawal, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench at the instance of the assessee under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') : 'Whether, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the income from incentive bonus received by the assessee, a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India, is liable to be taxed under the head of income salary and no deduction against that was admissible under the section relating to the taxing of salary income.' 2. The assessee derived income from salary and interest. He was employed in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, the 'LIC') as a Development Officer. He field returned of his income for the asst. yr. 1980-81 declaring income at Rs. 15,880. Salary as per the salary certificate was shown by the assessee at Rs. 26,729. He claimed deduction of Rs. 3,007 from the incentive bonus amounting to Rs. 7,517. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2001P& H49
M.L. Singhal, J.1. Balbir Singh Wasu, Advocate is the owner of plot No. 1119, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. He constructed house on this plot some 30 years ago. Adjoining plot No. 1120 was purchased by defendant-Parbandhak Committee, Gurdwara Sahib, Patshahi Dasween, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh at public auction held by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh on 19th November, 1997. Defendant was allotted plot No. 1137 and 1138 in Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. Defendant constructed residential house on Plots No. 1137 and 1138 in violation of the building plan of Sector 8-C. Plaintiff filed CWP No. 17884 of 1997 that the service quarters cannot be built on residential plot measuring 1 kanal. He prayed for the setting aside of the auction of residential plot No. 1120 in favour of the defendant. On 5th May, 1998, this court passed order that the defendant shall make further construction on plot No. 1120 in accordance with the plan which the Chandigarh Administration may sanction as per the prevailing rules. It was...
Tag this Judgment!