Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1982P& H44
S.P. Goyal, J.1. The sole question on which this regular second appeal has been referred to this larger Bench is as to whether the land sold by the vendor not to his tenant but acquired by him through pre-emption decree would be covered by the provisions of Section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and, therefore, the suit for pre-emption by a person having admittedly a better right of pre-emption than the tenant would not be competent.2. The land in dispute was sold by Dewan Chand, Hukam Chand and their sister Smt. Shanti Devi to Ram Sarup and his three brothers vide deed dated Mar. 8, 1965. Budhu, respondent No. 5 filed a suit for possession of this land by way of pre-emption on the ground that he was holding the said land as tenant at the time of its sale under the vendor which was decreed on compromise on Nov. 4, 1966. In the meanwhile, prior to the date of the said decree, Charanjit Lal, appellant, son of Dewan Chand, vendor, and nephew of other two vendors filed the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1980)14CTR(P& H)138; [1980]121ITR405(P& H)
R.N. Mittal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, at the request of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, referred the following question of law for decision of this court under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'):'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was not legally competent to pass the penalty order ?'2. Briefly the facts which have given rise to this reference are as follows :3. The assessee is a registered firm and manufactures and sells tool bits. For the accounting year ending March 31, 1965, relevant to the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee filed a return of income on September 30, 1965, wherein it showed its income as Rs. 10,365. While making the assessment the ITO noticed that the assessee had purchased goods worth Rs. 96,648 for which bills were not produced by it. He also categorised 26 separate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H335
Surinder Singh, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 1457 and 1458 of 1963, which arise out of two separate suits filed by the two brothers of Maharaja Sir Pratap Singh (since deceased), the then Ruler of the princely State of Nabha, which now forms a part of Punjab. On July 13, 1960, Maharaj Kumar Kharagh Singh (who has also died during the pendency of his appeal) filed Civil Suit No. 40 for possession of land known as 'Bir Ranadhai', situated in village Agaul, Tahsil Nabha, District Patiala. His brother, Maharaj Kumar Gurbax Singh, filed a similar Civil Suit No. 41 on the same day. Both these suits were tried independently by Subordinate Judge First Class, Patiala, and the claim of the plaintiffs was decreed. The State of Punjab went up in appeal before the District Judge, Patiala, who, though by means of separate judgments, but on absolutely identical considerations, accepted the appeals and dismissed the plaintiffs' suits. The two plaintiffs in the third ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H31
ORDERR.S. Narula, C.J. 1. In a suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the defendant-respondent, issues were framed on July 19, 1974, and the case was adjourned for the evidence of the plaintiff to September 9, 1974 On the said first date fixed for plaintiff's evidence, no witness of the plaintiff was either summoned or otherwise present in Court. The proper course for the trial Court in those circumstances would have been to call the plaintiff in the witness-box if he desired to appear and then to direct the defendant to enter on his defence. There was no earthly reason why another opportunity should have been allowed to the plaintiff unless the Court was satisfied on the basis of an affidavit produced before it or on the basis of the statement of the plaintiff that there were some special circumstances justifying adjournment of the case on payment of costs. The trial Court seems to have adjourned the case as a matter of routine though there was no reason for doi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1976P& H1
Bal Raj Tuli, J.1. Tkis judgment will dispose of 211 civil writ petitions (Nos. 2513, 3261, 3270 to 3274, 3712 to 3720, 3722 to 3729, 3753 to 3757, 3761, 3790, 3913 to 3954, 4205, 4206, 4291 to 4293, 4303, 4323, 4366, 4373 to 4376, 4311, 4315 to 4387, 4395, 4396. 4402, 4403, 4405, 4409 to 4412, 4421, 4436, 4438, 4440, 4441, 4467, 4441, 4419, 4544, 4548, 4549, 4570, 4572, 4580, 4514, 4607, 4610, 4617, 4625, 4688, 4692, 4699, 4709, 4717 to 4727, 4730, 4741, 4743, 4775, 4780 to 4782, 4792, 4800, 4818, 4844, 4865, 4866, 4869, 4870, 4874 to 4885, 4192 to 4906, 4910, 4911, 4919, 4923, 4924, 4935, 4947, 4962 to 4964, 4967 to 4972, 4985, 4990, 5002 to 5004, 5007, 5008, 5028, 5029, 5035, 5052, 5053, 5059, 5081, 5084, 5100, 5105, 5109, 5113, 5117 and 5122 of 1974) as common questions of law are involved. 127 writ petitions relate to the market committees in the State of Haryana and 84 to the market committees in the State of Punjab.2. The Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act (Punjab Act 23 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1974P& H128
ORDER1. By this judgment I shall dispose of Civil Revision Applications Nos. 508 and 517 of 1973 which are directed against an order dated the 21st of March, 1973 of Shri R. L. Garg, Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing two applications filed by Nawab Khan, the petitioner before me.2. The facts giving rise to the two petitions are not in dispute and may be shortly stated. On the 26th of November, 1962, Nawab Khan petitioner executed an agreement for the sale of 193 Kanals odd of land to Bharat Bhushan respondent No. 1 for Rs. 3,80,000/- part of the price was received by the petitioner as earnest money and the balance was agreed to be paid by respondent No. 1 within a period of about one year. Possession of the land was transferred to respondent No. 1. The agreement provided that respondent No. 1 would be entitled to divide the land into plots and to sell them to third parties in whose favour the petitioner bound himself to execute sale-deeds. Another stipulation inserted in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1972P& H322
1. On 9th June, 1967, Nand Singh is said to have executed a lease-deed, Exhibit D-2/A, regarding land, measuring 150 Kanals and 7 Marlas, situate in village Landeke, District Ferozepur, in favour of Gurdip Singh for a period of 20 years beginning from 16th June, 1967. The lease money fixed was Rs.1,800/- per year and this had to be paid by the lessee at the end of the year. The land revenue was to be paid by the lessor. There was a term in the deed that the lessor will not be able to evict the lessee before the expiry of the period of 20 years. It was further mentioned that some land out of 150 Kanals 7 Marlas, was under mortgage and the same would be redeemed by the lessor himself before 16th June, 1967. The possession of the land, which was free from mortgage, according to the deed, had been delivered to the lessee and as regards the mortgaged land, it was said that it would be given to the lessee immediately it was redeemed. This lease deed was, however, registered on 13th June, 196...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1970]77ITR212(P& H)
Bal Raj Tuli, J. 1. The respondent, Shri Satya Paul Virmani, is a Hindu undivided family, which derives its income from various businessesbesides property and dividend on shares. It owns a flour mill at Amritsar known as Jawala Flour Mills, Amritsar, which was leased out to M/s. S. P. Virmani and Sons Ltd., Amritsar, on the terms and conditions contained in the lease deed dated January 10, 1947. For the assessment year 1955-56 the Income-tax Officer made the assessment of the respondent on November 21, 1955; in which the income from the lease of the flour mill was determined at Rs. 36,609.00 and was treated as income from business. This income, along with some other income from business, was adjusted against the loss from some other business and the net income after adjustment was determined at Rs. 26,198-00. For the assessment year 1957-58, the Income-tax Officer treated the lease money of the flour mill as income from other sources and not as income from business. The assessee (respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1970P& H93
Mehar Singh, C.J. 1. On the death of Harnam Das, his land, situate in village Barod, in Tehsil Jind of Sangrur District, was mutated one-half in the name of his widow Subhagan, respondent 1, and the other half in the name of his son, Ranjit Singh. The total area of the land was 142 Bighas and 17 Biswas. So half of that, that is to say, a few Biswas over 71 Bighas was mutated in the name of Ranjit Singh. No partition had taken place between the mother and the son. On February 16, 1949, Ranjit Singh sold 65 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land, out of the total holding of 142 Bighas and 17 Biswas, to Ajit Singh appellant by a registered sale deed. The area sold was both irrigated, whether by canal or well, and unirrigated. Ranjit Singh said in the sale deed that he was the sole owner of the whole land, but because of the Ruler's circular in the former Jind State with regard to the rights of widows in Hindu families, half of the land from the inheritance of his father had been mutated in the name ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1969P& H352
ORDERMahajan, J.1. At the election to the Punjab Legislative council held in April, 1968, 5 candidates contested the election from Hoshiarpur local Authorities Constituency. The last date for the filing of the nomination papers was 12th of March, 1968.The date for the scrutiny of these papers was 13th of March, 1968; and the last date of withdrawal was 16th of March, 1968. The actual polling took place on the 7th of April 1968;The date for the scrutiny of these papers was 13th of March, 1968; and the last date of withdrawal was 16th of March, 1968. The actual polling took place on the 7th of April, 1968; and the result was declared on the 8th of April, 1968. The candidates, who contested who contested the election, were- Kundan Singh, petitioner; Kabal Singh, respondent No. 1; Didar Singh, respondent No. 2; Mian Mohinder Singh, respondent No.4; Kabal Singh, respondent No.1 was declared elected. This led to the present petition by Kundan Singh on the 13th of May, 1968, to this Court, fo...
Tag this Judgment!