Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-17-1997
Reported in : AIR1997P& H287; (1997)117PLR487
ORDER1. Since common question of law arises in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 4761 and 4911 of 1983, No. 1801 of 1985 No. 5604 of 1981, Nos. 2257, 3181. 3182, 3183, 3184 and 4573 of 1982 and Civil Revision No. 1833 of 1984, these are all being decided by this common order.2. Levy of house lax has been challenged in the aforesaid writ petitions. Some petitions have been filed by the petitioners whose properties are situated in the State of Punjab and some petitions arise from the State of Haryana. It will be convenient to discuss the two sets of petitions, one belonging o the State of Punjab and the other belonging to the State of Haryana, separately inasmuch as the question of applicability of the relevant rent control law would be decided differently.3. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 4761 and 4911 of1983, No. 2257 of 1982 and No. 1801 of 1985 relate to the properties situated in the State of Punjab. Civil Revision No. 1833 of 1934 alsorelates to a property situated in the State of Punjab. House...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-20-1997
Reported in : (1997)116PLR795
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the order Annexure P-3 passed by the House Tax Sub-Committee of the Municipal Council, Ferozepur, for levy of house-tax amounting to Rs. 25,562.25 and the dismissal of its appeal by the Additional deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, the petitioner-Life Insurance Corporation of India has sought issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order and for directing the respondents to make fresh assessment of the annual value of the building in which its officers are housed at Ferozepur.2. Since the respondents have not chosen to appear in response to the notice issued by the Court and no return has been filed by them, we shall decide the writ petition on the assumption that the averments made in the writ petition are correct.3. On 19.6.1995, the Municipal Committee issued notice to the petitioners for assessment of the house tax in respect of the building occupied by the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Ferozepur. The petitioners filed ob...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-28-1997
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ1040P& H
ORDERR.S. Mongia, J.1. This judgment will dispose of this writ petition as well as Civil Writ Petitions No. 881, 967, 1022, 1024, 1116, 1170, 1224, 1223, 1212, 1260, 1917, 2641, 1839, 1225, 1235, 1247, 1332, 1406, 1412, 1439, I486, 1493, 1496, 1522, 1600, 1616, 1628, 1629, 1612, 1680, 1724, 1730, 1777, 1838, 1912, 1994, 1999, 2034, 2082, 2136, 2159, 2164, 2230, 2447, 2697, 2702, 2802, all of the year 1997.2. All the aforesaid writ petitions were dismissed on February 28, 1997, but it was observed that the reasons will be recorded later on. We proceed to give reasons.3. In all these writ petitions, the grievance made is that the Notification dated December 23, 1996, copy Annexure P-5 in C.W.P.No.739 of 1996, issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour is wholly arbitrary and is not based on any reasonable objective and is not in consonance with the object of the original enactment i.e. the Employees' State Insurance Act (in short 'The Act'). This Notification has been is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-11-1997
Reported in : (1997)116PLR580
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. What is the ambit and scope of expression 'attributable to and aggravated by military service' appearing in para 173 of the Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961 is the precise question that falls for consideration before this Court, in the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was selected as Sepoy in the Indian Army on 8.9.1988 and consequently became subject to the provisions of the Indian Army Act and other rules and regulations. On 21.4.1991, the petitioner proceeded on casual leave and he was to return on 28.4.1991. Unfortunately, the right hand of. the petitioner was crushed at home when he was operating wheat thresher. This injury resulted in amputation of his right hand and consequent disability to the petitioner. The authorities concerned invalided the petitioner out of Army service on 30.12.1991. The petitioner raised a claim for grant of disability pension, which was decline...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-21-1997
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ438P& H; (1997)116PLR499
Sarojnei Saksena, J.1. This appeal hinges around the encompass of the definition of 'wages' as defined in Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, the Act).2. Skeleton facts of the case are that the respondent owns and runs two factories under the same name at New Industrial Toxvn, Faridahad and Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, and are subject to the provisions of the Act. The respondent-company on an average employs in the abovesaid two factories about 1500 employees and they are to be considered as 'insured employees' within the ambit of the provisions of the Act and is liable to deduct employees' contributions from their insured employees' wages and together with the employer's special contribution, deposit the same in the State Bank of India, Faridabad in the appropriate account of the respondent. The respondent was regularly de-ducting employees' contributions from its insured employees' wages together with employer's special contribution and was depositing t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-21-1997
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ770P& H; (1997)116PLR495
Sarojnei Saksena, J.1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has filed this appeal against the judgment dated September 6,1985, of Shri P.L, Goyal, Insurance Judge, whereby he has allowed respondent-company's petition tiled under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short the 'Act').2. Undisputedly the respondent company is covered under the Act and was paying contributions under the provisions of the Act to the Corporation. On April 30, 1976, the respondent-company floated a production incentive scheme for its employees, which became effective from May 1, 1976. This Scheme was extended till June 30, 1978. From July 1,1978, another such production incentive scheme was floated by the respondent-company. The second scheme is different from the earlier scheme on two counts. The second scheme provided that the incentive would be calculated on quarterly basis and would be paid at the end of each quarter, It also provided different rates of payment. The respondent-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-21-1997
Reported in : (1997)116PLR7
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Fifty years ago, the Constituent Assembly was entrusted with the task of framing the Constitution for independent India. Eminent people from different walks of life, who met under the Chairmanship of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, debated for over two years, examined and analysed the constitutions of almost all the countries of the world and prepared the document which is known as 'the Constitution of India'. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution on 26th day of November, 1949 and the India which became free from the imperial rule on 15th day of August, 1947 was declared to be a Republic on 26.1.1950 with the enforcement of the Constitution. The Preamble to the Constitution pronounces:-'We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens:JUSTICE, social, economic and political;LIBERTY of thought, expression belief, faith and worship;EQUALITY of status and of oppo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-13-1997
Reported in : 1999ACJ498; [1998]93CompCas381(P& H); (1997)117PLR406
M.S. Liberhan, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an award granting compensation of Rs. 80,000 to the claimants against the driver and transferee of the offending vehicle, i.e., truck No. PNP 6544. 2. The sole question raised in this appeal was with respect to the liability of the registered owner, namely, Hans Raj, and of the insurance company, i.e., whether the registered owner is liable to reimburse the claimants and resultantly the insurance company's liability to indemnify the insured, i.e., the registered owner. 3. The learned single judge came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was sold by Hans Raj, the registered owner, to one Mool Chand. Hans Raj, the transferor, was the insurer of the vehicle. The transferor did not intimate the insurance company with respect to the sale of the vehicle. The insurance company did not transfer the policy to thetransferee. Thus, in terms of the contract of indemnity, i.e., the insurance policy, the insurance company was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-27-1997
Reported in : 1998ACJ493; (1997)117PLR294
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The Civil revision was admitted for hearing to Full Bench by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Mongia vide his order dated 17.4.1996, which reads as under :-'Whether in the presence of Class-I heirs of the deceased under the Hindu Successions Act an applicant for compensation Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Section 110-A of the old Act) by an heir of Class II is maintainable or not is one of the primary questions that arises in the present case. According to the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 5 to 8, such an application by any Class II heir in the presence of Class I heirs is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision of a Full bench of this Court in Parkash Chand and Ors. v. Pal Singh and Ors., (1985-1)87 P.L.R. 538, and also on a Single Bench's decision of this Court in Hans Raj and Ors. v. Neelam Chopra etc., (1986-1)99 P.L.R. 92.On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State submit that u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-28-1997
Reported in : (1997)117PLR334
M.S. Liberhan, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order upholding Section 3(1) of Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension of Chandigarh) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as '1994 Corporation Act'), Section 1(2) of Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Capital Act') and the Notification dated 27.7.1994, specifying the territorial area of Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh, as well as extension of Capital Act to Union Territory of Chandigarh, where the existence of gram sabhas and gram panchayats ceased and thereby further vesting gram sabhas properties in the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh.2. Broadly-speaking, same Notifications were challenged in civil writ petition No. 4701 of 1995 by the residents of Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra on the similar grounds. The principal questions of law raised in the civil writ petition and in the Letters Patent Appeal and other civil writ petitions Nos. 3218 of 1989, 754 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!