Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-17-2008
Reported in : AIR2009P& H73; (2009)153PLR469
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.1. The substantial question of law involved in this appeal is that in case a testator bequeaths his property jointly to two lineal descendants by way of a Will and if one of the legatees dies during the life time of the testator, whether the bequeathed property would be taken away by other surviving legatee in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short 'the Act') or if the legatee dies during the life time of the testator leaving behind his mother as Class-I heir and has no lineal descendant, should the mother take the share of that legatee in view of Section 109 of the Act and whether mother is a lineal descendant.2. The facts firstThe appellant is the mother-in-law of respondent Bhupinder Kaur;Kartar Singh (deceased) had two sons called Ujjagar Singh and Saudagar Singh. Ujjagar Singh had a wife Surjit Kaur and two sons Harinder Singh and Avtar Singh. Harinder Singh had a wife Bhupinder Kaur and a minor son Amritpal Singh, whereas Avtar Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-04-2008
Reported in : [2009]147CompCas267(P& H)
Permod Kohli, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an order dated August 1, 2006 (Vijay Kumar Chopra v. Smt. Sudershan Chopra [2007] 140 Comp Cas 1), passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board at New Delhi. It is relevant to briefly notice the factual background of the case (facts are being noticed from Company Appeal No. 21).2. The parties to the present appeals are shareholders and directors on the board of the company, namely, 'Hind Samachar Ltd.', a closely held company incorporated in August, 1949, under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The company has its registered office at Hind Samachar Buildings, Civil Lines, Jalandhar and branches at other places. The company is engaged in printing and publishing of newspapers, journals, magazines, books, etc., in Urdu, English, Hindi and Punjabi. One of its famous publications is Urdu daily newspaper 'Hind Samachar'. The company was initially formed by late Lala Jagat Narain, a renowned journalist of his time who was father of app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-31-2008
Reported in : (2009)221CTR(P& H)163; [2009]178TAXMAN22(Punj& Har)
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), against the order dt. 16th March, 2007 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I', New Delhi in ITA No. 83/Del/2005 for the asst. yr. 2001-02, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in directing the AO to allow deduction under Section 80-IA whereas the question before Tribunal was related to deduction under Section 80-IB?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that process of assembling carried out by the assessee is to be understood as amounting to 'manufacture' or production of an article?2. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IB which was disallowed by the AO on the ground that assembling/job work done by the assessee did not amount to manufacturing activity, which was a cond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-31-2008
Reported in : [2009]308ITR222(P& H)
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), against the order dated March 16, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I', New Delhi in I.T.A. No. 83/DEL/2005 for the assessment year 2001-02, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80-IA whereas the question before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was related to deduction under Section 80-IB?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that process of assembling carried out by the assessee is to be understood as amounting to 'manufacture' or production of an article?2. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IB which was disallowed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-26-2008
Reported in : (2008)151PLR723
Vijender Jain, C.J.1. This is a petition where small number of lawyers, though members of the District Bar Association, Hisar have formed a separate association for seeking allotment of land for construction of chambers for their association only and thus acting against the interest of the majority of the members of the entire Bar, which in our opinion, is not in the collective interest of the legal fraternity as well as litigants thronging the Courts and thus administration of justice.2. Facts in brief are that around 200 lawyers practising at District Hisar, who are members of the District Bar Association, Hisar, formed a Lawyers' Chambers Welfare Association, Hisar (for short Association). The Association seeking construction of chambers got itself registered and applied for the aforesaid relief, to the government. The case was processed by the District Administration and recommended for allotment of required land for construction of lawyers' chambers for the members of the Associat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-14-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2471
ORDERM.M.S. Bedi, J.1. This order will dispose of an application under Section 389, Cr. P.C. for suspension of judgment of conviction dated December 11, 2003 of Special Judge, Faridabad in case FIR No. 249, dated May 1, 2002 under Sections 384, 342, 120B, IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (sic) Police Station Hodal, District Faridabad.2. The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court i.e. Special Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated December 11, 2003. The statutory first appeal against the conviction order is pending in this Court as admitted. The sentence of imprisonment stands already suspended by granting him the concession of bail vide order dated January 6, 2004.3. The appellant-applicant referring to the merits of the cases submits that the appellant has been acquitted under Sections 342 and 120B, IPC raising a doubt regarding the stiltedly of prosecution version, the complainant Prabhu Dayal, P.W. 6 and Dr. Jagdish P.W. 7 has not supported the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-05-2008
Reported in : II(2008)DMC596
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.1. By this common judgment, two criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1997 preferred by Shunti @ Raja, Om Parkash and Rajni and Criminal Appeal No. 865-SB of 1997 preferred by Om Parkash son of Narpat Ram will be decided.2. By the common judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari, all these four accused i.e. appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 306, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.3. FIR Ex. PK was lodged at the instance of Smt. Darshana Devi P.W. 1. She has stated in the FIR that she has got six sons and two daughters. His eldest son is Uttam Chand and younger to him is Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar was married with Rajni, appellant, about three years before the occurrence in Kalyan Nagar, Jagadhari. It is stated that from the marriage two daughters and one son was born. She further sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-19-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2035
Jitendra Chauhan, J.1. On 13-6-1997 Sahun, the appellant, was summoned for trial for offence under Section 376(f) of the Indian Penal Code for committing rape upon Sahina aged about 6/7 years. The trial Court on 11-11-1998 held the appellant guilty of the offence charged, and vide order dated 13-11-1998 the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant-accused was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11/13-11-1998 11/13-11-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon.3. On 20-2-1997, Jabbar Khan son of Khillu got his statement recorded before Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Kumar Police Post Bichhore that at about 9.00 a.m. when he came back from his field, his daughter Sahina, was found crying. Sahina told the complainant that Sahun son of Ismail took her to the fields of mustard cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-10-2008
Reported in : (2009)3PLR598
Vinod K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.9.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Gidderbaha allowing an application moved by the defendant respondent under Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC to treat the question of jurisdiction to be preliminary issue.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of the pleadings of the parties the question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be decided without allowing the parties to lead evidence, therefore, the Court could not treat it as preliminary issue.3. The reading of Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC can only lead to the conclusion that it is only pure question of law which can be treated as preliminary issue but when the question of jurisdiction requires leading of evidence then it has to be treated as mixed question of law and fact and cannot be treated as preliminary issue and is to be decided along with the other issues.4. In support of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-19-2008
Reported in : (2008)3PLR133
Ranjit Singh, J.1. The petitioner has impugned an order of his eviction from shop portion of S.C.F. 49, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh. Respondent, Dr. Davinder Mohan, who is owner and landlord of the demised premises, has filed this petition for eviction of the petitioner. Petitioner is a tenant in a shop at monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/- besides water and electricity charges. His eviction is sought on the ground that he has not paid the rent, not tendered the arrears of rent from 1.9.1995 despite repeated requests and that the said premises is required for use and occupation of Dr. Vivek Mohan, M.B.B.S. and Dr. Vandana Mohan, who are son and daughter-in-law of the respondent-landlord. It is pleaded that son of the respondent is practicing doctor in Homeopathy and his daughter in law is serving in the Haryana Government. They both intend to start practice after leaving the Government job and that is how the demised premises is needed for their use and occupation. It is further claimed that at ...
Tag this Judgment!