Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1041
Ram Lall, C.J.1. The following two questions have been referred to a F.B. for decision:1. Whether when proceedings are submitted by a Ses. J. to the H. C. before 15-8-1947 under Section 374, Cr. P.C. for confirmation of a sentence of death passed by him, the Lahore H, C. has Jurisdiction to deal with the case, irrespective of the fact that the offence was committed & the trial held in territories comprised in the East Punjab Province?2. Whether the appeal filed: (a) by the convict sentenced to death, & (b) by co-accused who were sentenced to a lower penalty but notice of enhancement of sentence was served on them before 15-8-1947 by the Lahore H. C; can be heard & decided only by the said Ct.?2. The reference arose in the following circumstances : One Bashir Ahmad was arrested at Jullundur on 8-3-1947 in connection with a murder said to have been committed on the same day at Jullundur. The learned Ses. J. tried him at Jullundur & convicted & sentenced him to death on 2-7-1947. On 11-7-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H165
Achhru Ram, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Lahore, affirming, on appeal, the decision of a Subordinate Judge of Delhi refusing to stay the suit brought by respondent 1 against the appellants and respondent 2 for a declaration to the effect that the agreement dated 14th July 1942, executed between respondent 1 and the appellants was invalid and unenforceable on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, and for cancellation of the aforesaid agreement as well as for recovery of a sum Of Rs. 2,50,000.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated as follows: The Board of trustees of the Hindu College, Delhi, wanted to construct a hostel for the College on the land allotted to the said College by the University of Delhi in what is called 'the University Town.' On 3rd May 1940, they requisitioned the services of Messrs. Master Sathe and Bhuta, a firm of architects, carrying on business in New Delhi, for prepa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H67
Mahajan, J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to answer the following questions of law:(1) When an amended petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C., is presented on behalf of a person in detention, does the presentation of the amended or fresh petition make the original petition infruotuoua, in a case where of the amended petition cognizance has been lateen by a Judge and notice on it issued 1 Whether in Aese circumstances has an Hon'ble Judge before whom ihe original petition is laid power to deal with it?(2) When a petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C., is already pending in the High Court, whether a petition resented substantially on the same facts subsequently can be dealt with by the Court before the first petition is disposed of?(3) Whether any petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C., or under any other section can be presented direst to an Hon'ble Judge and entertained by him. In other words, can a petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C., be made to a Judge of this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1953P& H72
Weston, C.J.1. This is a reference or rather four references consolidated into one made under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench. There were four applications for reference referring each to one accounting year, but the questions raised by each application were identical.2. The reference relates to a liability under the Excess Profits Tax Act of 1940. The assessee firm, known as Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills, Chheharta, was constituted in the year 1935, having three partners Narain Singh and his two sons Gurudayal Singh and Ram Singh, their shares in the partnership being six annas, five annas and five annas respectively. There is no doubt that this partnership was a business partnership. A factory with plant and machinery, at Chheharta was owned by the firm which carried on the business of manufacture of ribbons and 'laces. On 7-4-1940 a public limited liability company was incorporated under the name of Hindusthan Embroidery Mills, Ltd....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H1
Harnam Singh, J. 1. On the 28th February, 1951, Ebrahim Aboobakar and Hawabai Aboobaker applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that a writ of 'certiorari' should issue to the Custodian-General, Evacuee Property, Delhi, to bring up, in order to be Quashed, the order pronounced by him on the 15th of May, 1950, in proceedings under Section 24 read with Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, and that writs of prohibition and 'mandamus' should issue to the Custodian-General forbidding him from proceeding with the hearing of appeal pursuant to that order.2. Briefly summarised, the facts of the case, so far as material, are these. On the 16th of December, 1949, the Additional Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay, hereinafter referred to as the Additional Custodian, gave notice under Section 7 of the Ordinance to Aboobakar Abdulrehman calling upon him to show cause why his right, title and interest in the Im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H9
Harnam Singh, J. 1. This order disposes of Civil Miscellaneous (Writs) Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of 1951.2. Briefly summarised, the material facts are these. On the 17th of February, 1951, respondent No. 1 gave notice under Section 52A of the Indian Insurance Act, 1938, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to the Jupiter General Insurance Company, Limited, Bombay, the Empire of India Life Assurance Company, Ltd., Bombay, and the Tropical Insurance Company, Ltd., New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the companies, that he had reason to believe that the companies were acting in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the interests of holders of life insurance policies of those Companies and informing them that he would hear them on the 26th of February, 1951, in his office in New Delhi, and unless satisfactory cause was shown he would make a report to respondent No. 2 for the appointment of an Administrator to manage the affairs of the companies. Grounds for action under Section 52A of the Act wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H373
Kapur, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two appeals F. A. O. Nos. 2 and 3 of 1951 and two Civil Revisions Nos. 187 and 183 of 1951 all arising out of the same order. The appeals are directed against the same order passed intwo suits dated the 18th December 1950 in which the learned trial Judge repeated his order for remitting the award and also dismissed the objections which had been filed by the defendants. As there was some doubt as to whether an appeal would lie from this order or not the defendants have filed two revisions also in this Court.2. The plaintiff had dealings with two firms, firm Subh Karan Das-Churanji Lal and Par-mesh war Lal & Company. The former deals in forward contracts of gold and the latter of silver. The partners in the former are Subh Karan Das, Madan Lal, Basheshar Lal, Chu-ranji Lal, Parmeshwar Lal and Ram Lal and in the latter are Basheshar Lal, Parmeshwar Lal, Gulzari Lal and Shiv Karan Das. Both these firms are firms of pucca arhtias. Jai Narain, the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H79
Kapur, J. 1. The sole point in this plaintiffs' second appeal is whether in the Ambala District collaterals of the seventh degree are preferential heirs than sisters' sons in regard to non-ancestral property. 2. According to the Riwaj-i-am of Ambala District the common custom is that a daughter is excluded by the collaterals descending from a common great great-grandfather (shakarbaba) and sisters will succeed in the absence of a daughter or daughter's son, the rule with regard to sons of sister being the same. Mr. Tek Chand has submitted that the Riwai-i-am of Ambala District must be taken to refer, as indeed the other Riwaj-i-ams, to ancestral property and therefore whatever be the right of the sisters or their sons in regard to ancestral property, non-ancestral property must be governed according to the general custom of the Punjab which is contained in paragraph 24 of Rattigan's Digest, and he relies on a judgment of the Lahore High Court in 'Kirpa v. Bakhshish Singh', 50 P L R 220...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H139
Kapur, J. 1. This is appeal against a judgment and decree passed by Mr. Mohindar Singh, Senior Subordinate Judge, affirming the decree of the trial Court holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.2. The plaintiffs were the occupancy tenants under the defendants who are landlords. On the 13th of December, 1945, the landlords brought a suit in a revenue Court for ejectment of the tenants under Section 39 of the Punjab Tenancy Act a suit which was entertainable exclusively by a revenue Court. The following issues were raised in that case.'1. Whether the land in suit is not land as denned in the Tenancy Act and therefore the suit is not cognizable by this Court? Onus on defendants. 2. Whether the buildings on the land were for purposes subservient to agriculture? Onus on defendants. 3. Whether the suit was in time? Onus on plaintiffs. 4. Whether the defendants in case of ejectment were entitled to any compensation for improvement and if so, how much? On...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1953P& H274
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India against an appellate judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge affirming the decree of the trial Court granting a declaration and issuing an injunction against the Union of India. The plaintiff is a licensed vendor of country liquor in the Province of Delhi and in the Punjab and has been one for Several years.2. By a document, Exhibit P. I, notice was given for the auction of a country liquor shop situate in Katra Barian for the year beginning from 1-4-1946, to 31-3-1947. The public auction was to be held on 20-3-1946, and it was so held by the Collector. It is admitted that the conditions of auction were read out to the intending bidders at the time of the auction on 20-3-1946 and they are marked as Exhibit D. W. 1/1 and only two of the conditions are relevant to the dispute :'32. The Collector will not be bound to accept the highest bid. If in the opinion of the said officer the bid for any particular shop is excessive he ...
Tag this Judgment!