Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-21-1998
Reported in : [1999]97CompCas80(P& H); (1998)118PLR520
..... court in life insurance corporation of india v. asia udyog (p.) ltd. [1982] i ilr delhi 582; [1984] 55 comp cas 187, i am of the conclusive view that each case has to be adjudged on its own facts. the approach of the company court under such circumstances in each case should be in the light of the observations made by the supreme court in paragraph 12 of the said judgment. in my considered opinion, therefore, there is no conflict in between the provisions of the debt recovery act and the provisions of section 446 of the companies act and ..... tribunal at delhi for the recovery of rs. 2,96,44,894.52. this application was filed by the state bank of india on august 29, 1996. according to the bank, section 34 of the debts recovery act has overriding effect over the provision of the companies act, 1956, and they were not obliged to seek permission of the company court under section 446(1) of the companies act, 1956. they had proceeded to file the said application before the debts recovery tribunal. however, as abundant precaution, they have filed the present ..... a later date a winding up order was passed, a bench of this court held that suit or other proceedings could not continue without the leave of the court in punjab national bank v. punjab finance pvt. ltd. [1973] 43 comp cas 350 (p & h). 23. the jurisdiction of the company court to grant leave to the parties to continue a suit or proceedings which had been instituted without leave of the company court after the winding up order was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-31-1998
Reported in : (1998)119PLR354
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, in Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1985 dated March 13, 1996.2. The only dispute in this appeal is in regard to the interest on the amount covered by the policy. On Parkash husband of the first respondent took a policy in his name on his life for Rs. 50,000/- in July, 1975 and he died on 4.5.1976. The plaintiffs then requested the defendant Corporation to pay them the amount but the corporation did not pay the same. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed this suit for recovery of the amount. The trial Court decreed the suit but no interest has been granted. The plaintiffs filed an appeal claiming interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The appellate Court awarded interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of death of the insured. Aggrieved by the same the Life Insurance Corporation filed the present appeal.3. Learned counsel for the appellant conte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-05-1998
Reported in : (1999)121PLR174
ORDERR.L. Anand, J.1. By this order I dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 6766-M of 1998 (Amandeep Singh Grover v. State of Punjab) a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to which the Registry will allot a number, titled Amandeep Singh Grover and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.; a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Amandeep Singh and Smt. Satinder Kaur, to which the Registry will also allot a regular number.2. The facts can be noticed as underThere was a matrimonial alliance between Shri Amandeep Singh and Smt. Satinder Kaur and the marriage between them took place on 25th April, 1993 at Amritsar according to Sikh rites. No child was born to Smt. Satinder Kaur out of this cohabitation. Differences arose between the parties, which could not be reconciled and ultimately these differences led to the registration of FIR No. 117 dated 23rd October, 1997 under Sections 406/498A, Indian Penal Code, at Police Station A-Division, Amritsar. Finally apprehensive of his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-22-1998
Reported in : (1999)IILLJ84P& H; (1998)120PLR212
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. This is a bunch of 24 cases. There are 23 Civil Writ Petitions. Civil Writ Petition No. 11611 of 1989 has been filed by the Workers' Union. The 22 cases viz. C.W.P. Nos. 12002-12022 12002-12022 and 9374 of 1992 have been filed by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, to challenge the order passed by the Labour Court in proceedings under Section 33C(2) wherein the claim of the workmen for the award of wages on account of being called upon to work on holidays has been upheld. Such a challenge having been negatived in a case by the learned single Judge, the Municipal Committee, Gidderbaha has filed L.P.A. No. 768 of 1992. The facts may be briefly noticed. 2. On August 27, 1969, the Punjab Government had made a reference to the, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab. One of the disputes which had been referred to the Tribunal was - 'Whether the Beldars should be given holidays on every Saturday on the lines given to, other employees of the Committee'. 3. This dispute was deci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-18-1998
Reported in : I(1999)ACC46; 2000ACJ1292; (1998)120PLR756
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The facts necessary for deciding these appeals are that Prem Nath and Pawan Kumar, who were travelling in truck No. HRH 5995 driven by one Jasbir Singh as owners of goods being transported in the said truck were killed in an accident that took place on 17.3.1980 at 1.30 a.m. near Village Chikanwas, Hisar-Sirsa road. The other vehicle involved in the accident was truck No. PNO-1537 which was loaded with cotton bales and was driven by Hukam Chand. As a result of collision, truck No. HRH-5995 turned turtle and caught fire resulting in the death of the owners of the goods. Surinder son of the owner of truck No.HRH-5995 and driver of truck No. PNO-1537 were also killed in the accident. Smt. Krishna Devi and other heirs of late Shri Prem Nath filed petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for award of compensation. A similar petition was filed by Smt. Shanti Devi, widow of late Shri Pawan Kumar and his heirs. The claimants limited their claim to Rs. 40,000/- because of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-31-1998
Reported in : (1999)121PLR254
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This is a petition to quash the order Annexure P-6 passed by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') requiring the petitioner to pay enhanced house tax from 1.11.1991. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order Annexure P.9 dated 5.8.1997 passed by the Principal Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, dismissing the appeal filed by it against the order of assessment.2. Admittedly, the petitioner owns commercial property bearing Municipal No. 117/1 situated in Hall Bazar, Amritsar. A major portion of the first floor of the property measuring 7144 Sq. feet is in the possession of Life Insurance Corporation as a lessee of the petitioner. Vide order Annexure-P.1 dated 14.12.1981, the respondent-Corporation assessed the petitioner for house tax. On 1.2.1984, notice Annexure-P.2 was issued by the respondent-Corporation for revision of the house tax. The proposed assessment was based on the rateable value of the property Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-23-1998
Reported in : (1999)121PLR546
G.C. Garg, J.1. Vidya Wanti, petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration that she is the owner in possession of the house in question. Her allegation for seeking declaration seems to be that the house in dispute fell to her share in a family settlement and, therefore, she was owner in possession thereof. Defendant 1 is the husband of the plaintiff whereas other defendants are the brothers of defendants 1 or the widow, sons and the daughters of the pre-deceased brother of defendant-1. Defendants 2 to 11 filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Some or all the defendants also made statements before the trial Court which were reduced into writing and are signed by them admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Somehow or the other, the suit remained pending. During this period all the defendants except defendant 1 moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the written statement and for withdrawal of the written statem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-16-1998
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
Decided on : Oct-27-1998
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
Decided on : Oct-28-1998
Reported in : [1999]238ITR170(P& H)
N.K. Agrawal, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order allowing deduction at 40 per cent. out of incentive bonus received by the assessee who is a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India ?' 2. The assessee was employed in the Life Insurance Corporation of India as a Development Officer. He derived income from salary. He received certain amount by way of incentive bonus from his employer, namely, the Life Insurance Corporation. He sought deduction from the amount of incentive bonus on account of certain expenditures which he claimed to have incurred in the performance of his duties in connection with his efforts for securing more insurance busi...
Tag this Judgment!