Court : Punjab and Haryana
CWP No.24029 of 2013 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.24029 of 2013. Date of decision:22. 01.2014 The Assistant Superintendent of Post Office ...Petitioner Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II and another ...Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA ***** Present: Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. **** G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.(Oral).1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 4.3.2013 (Annnexure P-10) whereby the Labour Court-II, Chandigarh has substituted the punishment of removal with stoppage of two increments permanently and held that the workman is entitled to be reinstated without payment of back wages.2. From the record of the writ petition, it transpires that the demand notice dated 5.7.2004 (Annexure P-6) was served upon by the petitioner challenging the termination on the basis of which reference was made to the Labour Court.3. As per the statement of claim, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1973P& H104
1. These five appeals will be disposed of by this judgment which have been numbered as F.A.O. Nos. 41, 42, 44, 96 of 1966 and 173 of 1967. All the appeals arise out of one judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') which was passed in five claim petitions, details of which are given here under. I have also given the number of appeals against each claim in which it has been filed:--Sr. No. ___________________ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Claim application No. ___________________ 15/CT of 1964 19/CT of 1964 20/CT of 1964 21/CT of 1964 22/CT of 1964 Name of the Parties ___________________ Rani Bai Bajaj and others. v. Darshan Singh and others. Dewan Manmohan Lal v. Darshan Singh and others Pritam Singh v. Darshan Singh and others. Mathura Dass v. Darshan Singh and others. Shrimathi Bhagwanti and others v. Darshan Singh and others Appeal, if field with number and the name of the appellant ___________________ (i) Appeal filed by Rani Bai Bajaj for enhanceme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2000P& H36; (2000)125PLR96
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Umrao petitioner has filed the present revision petition directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Narnaul, dated 11-11-1992 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Narnaul, dated 2-5-1998. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority.2. The relevant facts are that petitioner is a tenant in the shop in question. The respondents who are landlords filed an eviction petition. The ground of eviction relevantfor the disposal of the present revision petition and that found favour with the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority is that, as per landlords, the petitioner who is a tenant has sublet the property to Raghbir respondent (now dead and represented by respondents No. 3 to 5 in the revision petition). Raghbir was the son of the petitioner. The eviction petition was contested. It was denied that the property in question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1997]223ITR187(P&H)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The following question of law, at the instance of the accountable person, has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), for opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that an amount of Rs. 40,000 received by the legal heir of the deceased from the Life Insurance Corporation under the double benefit scheme is liable to estate duty under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?'which arises out of the following facts :Sat Pal died on April 6, 1970. He had taken a double benefit life insurance policy of Rs. 40,000. In the event of death by accident, on payment of extra premium, the same was to be double the assured amount of Rs. 40,000, Sat Pal died in an accident and a sum of Rs. 93,196 was received by the legal heirs. The accountable person, Smt. Satya Wati, wife of the deceased, claimed exemption from estate duty in respect of the amount of Rs. 40,000...
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 : (2003)133PLR579
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This judgment would dispose of three civil revision petitions namely Civil Revision Nos. 1445, 1561 and 1810 of 1993 as the common question of law and facts have been raised by the landlord petitioner against the defendant-tenants who has sought their ejectment claiming to be a specified landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity the Act). For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from C.R. No. 1445 of 1993. The Rent Controller in his order dated 15.12.1992 has repelled the claim of the landlord-petitioner by dismissing his application in which prayer was made for eviction of the tenant respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.1992 dismissing his application, the landlord petitioner has filed the present petitions by invoking the provisions of Section 18A of the Act.2. The findings which have attained finality against the tenant-respondent and have not been challenged before this Court may fir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1990)97PLR1
M.M. Punchhi, J.1. These are 19 matters which have been admitted to be heard by a Full Bench. Two are Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2175 and 5488 of 1986 and seventeen are Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 264, 283 to 294, 321 to 326, 342 and 343 of 1980.2. The Municipal Corporation, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') is the constesting party on one side in these matters. And the contestants on the other side are house-tax payers. Their dispute with the Corporation and its officers is with regard to the method of the assessment of house-tax under the provisitions of Section 93 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation Act'). The house-tax payers rely on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Punjab Concast Steels Ltd. Ludhiana v. The Municipal Corporation Ludhiana, (1985-1) 87 P. L. R. 757. and on the other hand the Corporation relies on a Division Bench decision in Hukam Chand v. The State of Punjab., 1979 (1) L. L. R. 12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1996)112PLR184
Sarojnei Saksena, J. 1. The factual matrix of Crl. Misc. No. 9322-M of 1993 is that the petitioner-accused was arrested under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) for keeping in his possession 10 KGs of poppy husk without a requisite licence. He was produced before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa, for remand. Initially he was remanded to police custody and later on to judicial custody. His bail application was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. In the aforesaid Crl. Misc. petition the petitioner's learned counsel contended that under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36-A of the Act the Judicial Magistrate could not grant remand beyond the period exceeding 15 days in the whole. Hence the order of remand granted by the Judicial Magistrate rendered the petitioner's detention illegal and on this count he is entitled to bail. He placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of Kerala High Court in Berlin Joseph v....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2004)136PLR311
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This is a petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act') for setting aside order dated 1.8.1984 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur constituted under the Act (hereinafter described as the Appellate Authority) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 26-R-1983 vide which it set aside order dated 15.4.1983 passed by Rent Controller, Ferozepur for eviction of the respondents.The facts:-2. The petitioners filed an application before Rent Controller, Ferozepur under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the respondents from Shop No. 1285 situated in Main Chowk, Jallalabad on the ground of non-payment of rent from 1.7.1977 to 31.5.1981 at the rate of Rs. 42.50 and house tax at the rate of 15% per annum and subletting of the tenanted premises by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 without their consent.In their written statement, the respondents admitted that the shop in question had been rented out to respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Kumar Vinod 2014.01.31 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.3763 of 2013 (O&M) [1].****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.3763 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:27.01.2014 Life Insurance Corporation of India ...Appellant Versus Balwinderjit Kalia ...Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of `6,66,727/-, out of which `4,16,727/- was claimed towards rent and `2,50,000/- as interest. It is alleged that the defendant took the demised premises on rent @ `4,800/- per month in the year 1984, with increase of 15% every five yeaRs.The rent was increased from time to time and in the year 2000, it was `7,311/- per month. It is alleged that since the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f.01.06.2004, therefore, the plaintiff filed application for ejectment under Section 13 of ...
Tag this Judgment!