Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-10-1999
Reported in : [1999]98CompCas683(P& H); [2000(84)FLR538]
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. The respondent, the Haryana Financial Corporation (for short 'the corporation'), had filed a petition for winding up of Ravindra Pharmaceutical (P.) Ltd. On February 4, 1994, an order was passed for winding up of the abovesaid company. On August 12, 1994, on the application of the corporation, this court directed that after selling the properties of Ravindra Pharmaceutical Private Limited, the respondent-Corporation will send to this court a detailed report regarding all the steps taken for the sale of the property and also regarding the price which the properties had fetched. On January 13, 1995, an application was filed for confirmation of the sale which was allowed. 2. The official liquidator has filed an application under rule 9 read with rules 147 and 148 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, and sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). It appears that an accident took place wherein seven workmen died, two were seriously injured....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-07-1999
Reported in : (1999)123PLR814
K.K. Srivastava, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the award made by respondent No. 2 Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad on September 1, 1984 published in the Haryana Gazette dated November 13, 1984, copy Annexure P-13, vide which the order of termination of the workman, Vijay Bahadur Singh respondent No. 1 passed by the petitioner was declared illegal and void and the workman was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. 2. Respondent No. 1 Vijay Bahadur Singh was employed as a Fitter by the petitioner Frick India Pvt. Limited, Faridabad initially on November 27, 1981 on a probation of six months. The work of respondent No. 1 was not found satisfactory and he was asked to improve his work. Respondent No. 1 was, however, not interested in the service with the petitioner and left the job in search of a better employment on June 2, 1982. The full and final account of respondent No. 1 was settled and paid to him vide voucher produced in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-12-1999
Reported in : [2001]106CompCas239(P& H); (1999)123PLR335
..... also filed cp no. 15 of 1999 under sections 456, 468 read with section 538, of the act praying for a direction to the respondents therein to deposit the amounts due and payable to the respondent-company in the name of official liquidator. one amount of rs. 45,06,080 is payable by life insurance corporation to the trust created by the employees of the respondent-company. the ..... with the winding up of the respondent-company for its inability to pay its debts despite service of a statutory notice within the preview and scope of sections 433, 434 and 439 of the companies act, 1956 ('the act') but was obliged to consider with definite emphasis whether it was just, fair and equitable to wind up this respondent-company for various reasons and causes ..... hon'ble apex court in real value appliances case (supra). even statutory provisions are founded on a basic principle of legislation intendment that there should be correct application of such provisions to redress the grievances for which such remedy is provided and there could be no presumption of safeguard to the abuse of such provisions. the conduct of the respondent-company ..... of the company which has resulted in the present financial instability of the company as a whole. (this factor is just being noticed and would not be treated as a conclusion of the court.) 43. deadlock in the management of the company is one of the grounds which may make it equitable and just for the court to wind up a company. varied instance of total deadlock in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-03-1999
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
Decided on : Oct-12-1999
Reported in : (2000)124PLR827
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed by Deepak Kumar, hereinafter described as 'the petitioner' directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Barnala, dated 4.9.1997. By virtue of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Appellate Authority, Barnala, had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Barnala, dated 2.2.1994 and instead dismissed the petition for eviction.2. The facts alleged are that Hem Raj is stated to be the tenant in the suit premises. A petition for eviction has been filed against him asserting that arrears of rent have not been paid from 1.2.1989 and that the tenant has sublet the suit premises to Durga Dass who is running the business of dry-cleaning without the consent of the petitioner-landlord in writing.3. The petition for eviction had been contested. It was alleged that rent has already been paid uptil 30.3.1990 and further the Durga Dass is doing the work of dry-cleaning in one portion of the shop. They...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-03-1999
Reported in : (2000)124PLR432
N.K. Agrawal, J.1. These are two revision petitions by the defendants against the common order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, whether the defendants' applications for the amendment of their written statements under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, have been rejected. Identical amendments were sought in the applications filed by defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 separately.2. Plaintiff filed a civil Suit for declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated September 20, 1990 passed by the civil suit No. 96/24.2.1990 by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Patiala, effecting Plaintiff's right in the land are illegal, null and void. Plaintiffs case is that he never appeared in the suit which was decreed on September 20, 1990. Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 filed their joint written statement separately. Both sets of written statements are identical. They admitted that the plaintiff, Dev Singh, was served as a defendant in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-06-1999
Reported in : (1999)123PLR364
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by Kamlesh Kumar and others (hereinafter described as 'the petitioners') directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Faridkot dated 1.3.1979 and of the Appellate Authority, Faridkot dated 19.3.1981. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners and the appeal filed by the petitioner failed before the Appellate Authority.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that petitioners filed the petition for eviction against Prem Chand (respondent No. 1) and M/s Banarsi Dass Gian Chand (respondent No. 2). It was asserted that respondent No. 1 Prem Chand is the tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. He has not paid the arrears of rent from 1.3.1977. it was further asserted that the tenant-respondent No. 1 had made material alterations in the suit premises and has removed the wooden planks partitioning the shop and fixed almir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-06-1999
Reported in : (1999)123PLR175
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by Brij Mohan (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner') directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Sirsa dated 21.11.1995 and of the Appellate Authority, Sirsa dated 9.3.1998. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner and Anr.. The said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority.2. The relevant facts are that respondents Meera Devi and Pushpa Devi had filed an eviction petition against Shakuntia Devi and Surinder Dass (respondents 3 and 4) besides the petitioner. It was alleged that Shakuntia Devi and Surinder Dass were partners of M/s Mahant Electric Company. They were tenants in the suit property. The ground of eviction which survives for consideration was that respondents 3 and 4 were stated to have sublet the premises to the petitioner. It was asserted that respondents 3 and 4 are the original tenants. The partnership had been dissolved and the posses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-08-1999
Reported in : AIR2000P& H94; (1999)123PLR603
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The question of law that arises for adjudication in this petition is whether the Appellate Authority constituted under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the 1910 Act') can condone delay in the filing of appeal under the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1956 Rules') by invoking the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1963 Act').2. The facts necessary for deciding the above noted question are that on the basis of test checking of the meter installed in the premises of respondent No. 1, petitioner-Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter described as 'the Board') sent a revised bill of Rs. 1,05,330.93 to respondent No. 1 who challenged the same by filing civil suit. On a reference being made to him by the Civil Court, the Chief Electrical inspector, Punjab passed award dated 15-9-1994 directing the Board to pay back the amount realised from respondent No. 1 towards power fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-05-1999
Reported in : (1999)122PLR69
V.K. Bali, J.1. Petitioner/landlord lost his case on merits before the Rent Controllers his petition for eviction filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent/Restriction Act was dismissed on 25.1.1981. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred an appeal which has been dismissed being barred by time. It is against this order of the appellate authority dated 24.3.1982, that the present petition has been filed.2. It is the conceded position that learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition on 21.5.1981 and that the petitioner made an application to obtain certified copy of the order on 28.5.1981 and the same was supplied to him on 26.6.1981. It is again conceded position that Civil Courts remained closed from 16.6.1981 to 15.7.1981 and once again it is the conceded position that the appeal came to be preferred before the appellate authority on the next day i.e., 16.7.1981. Learned appellate authority held that appeal was barred by time on the basis of ...
Tag this Judgment!