Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1999)121PLR112
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (21st July, 1998) - The petitioner, a candidate for the 103-Kotkapura Assembly Constituency, has a two-fold complaint. Firstly, he alleges that his nomination paper was illegally rejected. Secondly, the petitioner submit that the nomination paper of Mantar Singh, the returned candidate was wrongly accepted. Thus, the petitioner maintains that the entire election is vitiated. Is it so? A few facts may be noticed.2. The Election Commission of India notified elections to the State Assembly in the year 1997. January 20, 1997 was the last date for filing of nomination papers. These were to be scrutinised on January 21, 1997. The candidates could withdraw their nominations on January 6, 1997 and the votes had to be counted on February 2, 1997.3. January 23, 1997 was declared a National holiday. Thus, there was a slight variation in the election programme. January 24, 1997 was fixed as the date of withdrawal of nominations. The poll was fixed fo...
Tag this Judgment!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 : (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 : [2000]100CompCas638(P& H); (2000)124PLR303
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. In order to provide medium and long term credit to industrial b3 undertakings which could not be financed by the commercial banks, the Central Industrial Financial Corporation was set up under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948. After some time, the State Governments expressed their desire that the State Financial Corporations should also be set up on the pattern of the Central Industrial Financial Corporation which may function under the ultimate control of the State Governments. In order to meet this demand, and keeping in view the provision of entry 43 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, Parliament enacted the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1951 Act'). The object of providing financial assistance to the existing industrial concerns and new entrepreneurs who wanted to set up industries was satisfactorily achieved. But in the later years, the State Financial Corporations had been dragged into litigation and there is ...
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!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 : [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 : [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 : (2003)134PLR280
N.K. Sud, J.1. The petitioners, who run buses under the stage carriage Permits granted to them, have filed this petition praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari declaring Sections 3F, 4A, 5A, 7A, 7B and 7C of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1924 (for short the Motor Vehicles Act), as incorporated by the Punjab Act No. 22 of 1993, imposing special Road Tax as ultra-vires the Constitution of India. They also seek a direction to the respondents to refund the special Road Tax already charged from the petitioners and a further direction not to charge the same in future also.2. Before adverting to the controversy raised in this petition, it is necessary to notice the background under which the impugned amendment had been brought about in the Motor Vehicles Act.3. Prior to the aforesaid amendment the tourist bus operators were paying taxes on motor vehicles under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 empowers the State Government to le...
Tag this Judgment!