Court : Punjab and Haryana
K. Kannan, J. 1.Both the appeals are with reference to a claim made for death of a male stated to be aged 47 years in the petition in a motor accident that took place on 5.3.2008. The deceased was said to be a transporter holding a fleet of vehicles having earned himself the benefit of credits from financial institutions and running them, after having hypothecated the same with the financial institutions. The claimants were widow, three children aged 22 years, 20 years and 18 years and father and the further contention was that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. He had been hospitalized and treated for all the injuries suffered by him at private hospitals and the bills have been filed providing for proof for the expenses incurred. 2. The Tribunal found the negligence of the insured's vehicle as having been established and while assessing the compensation provided for an assessment of Rs. 48,34,590/- as the amount payable by the Insurance Company. The aggregate sum was com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.(Oral): 1. The petitioner has filed this petition, claiming it to be in public interest, challenging certain provisions of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "2015 Act'), notified vide Notification dated 19.11.2015. By this Act the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "1955 Act") as applicable to Haryana has been repealed. 2. The petitioner is further seeking direction to the respondents to adopt and declare Cow Progeny as "State Animal of Haryana". 3. The primary challenge is to sub sections (2) and (3) of Section 20 of 2015 Act. 4. Section 20 of the Act reads as under :- "(1) The Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (Punjab Act No. 15 of 1956) as applicable to the State of Haryana is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the repealed Act and the rules made thereunder, shall be deemed to have been done or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Impugned in the present revision is the order dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna, whereby an application filed under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 7.2.1996 was dismissed being timed barred. Also impugned is the order dated 31.10.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal against the said order was also dismissed. Undisputedly, a suit for possession by way of specific performance of land measuring 9 kanals 9 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Rattanheri, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, was filed against the present revisionist in the Court of the then Additional Senior Sub Judge, Khanna. It was averred in the said suit that defendant (revisionist herein) had agreed to sell the said land to the plaintiff (respondent her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. Bahal Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption against Mokham Singh, husband of respondent No. 5, on 20.04.1965 in respect of the land measuring 63 Kanal 01 Marla, situated in the revenue estate of village Jhandakalan. A compromise was effected between the parties on 28.05.1965 by which Mokham Singh surrendered possession of land measuring 23 Kanal 10 Marlas, comprised in Killa Nos. 160/1 (1-18), 2 (7-19) and 3 (7-11) in favour of Bahal Singh in lieu of Rs.5,000/- and statement of both the parties to that effect was recorded by the Civil Court. The learned Civil Judge, Mansa decreed the suit of Bahal Singh in terms of the compromise to the extent of 23 Kanal 10 Marlas on 21.06.1965. The petitioners filed an application to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Sardulgarh on 21.12.2004 for sanctioning of mutation on the basis of decree dated 21.06.1965. The Halqa Patwari recorded the entry of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of six appeals viz. ITA Nos. 142, 143 of 2013, 156, 157, 159 and 160 of 2014 as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue involved in all the appeals is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 142 of 2013. 2. ITA No. 142 of 2013 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 16.10.2012, Annexure A.3 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 731/CHD/2012 for the assessment year 2009-10. This appeal was admitted on 22.1.2014 by this Court to consider following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in treating chargeability of payments made to doctors who are regular employees of the hospital as per the provisions of Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Municipal Committee, Naraingarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') consists of 13 elected members and two nominated members, i.e., Member Parliament from Ambala and Member Legislative Assembly, Naraingarh, who were nominated as such under Section 9(3) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Appellant Sanjeev Kumar Verma was elected President of the Committee in the meeting held on 21.6.2010. His name was notified in the official gazette of the State of Haryana. In a meeting of the members of the Committee held on 3.8.2012, a no confidence motion was passed against the appellant under Section 21 of the Act read with Rule 72-A of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') for his removal as President. Out of 15 members to whom the notices were given, i.e., 13 elected and 2 nominated, as stated above, only 9 elected members came present in the meeting and unanimously passed the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Rs.No.3627 of 2012 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.3627 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:08.08.2014 Parminder Singh Rahi ..Appellant versus BSNL and others ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present : Mr.S.K.Sharma Budhladawale, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Anil Rathee, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?. 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. **** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. Plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment of reversal passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby judgment and decree of mandatory injunction passed by the learned trial Court, was set aside and the appeal of the defendants was allowed. Briefly put, facts of the case are that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction, for directing the respondents-defendants to allow one increment to the plaintiff, in view of the circular dated 8.3.1990 and particularly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
RSA No.3412 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3412 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:05.08.2014 Kamlesh ....Appellant Versus Shanti Devi ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.2. To be referred to reporters or not?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present:- Mr. Vijay S.Kajla, Advcate for the appellant. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby her suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2006 and the appeal was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.01.2009. As per the averments made, appellant is recorded as owner in possession of the land measuring 1/5th share in the total land measuring 30 kanals 8 marlas being share of 61 kan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CWP No.1143 of 2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1143 of 2013 (O&M) Reserved on:01.07.2014. Date of decision:17.07.2014 Sarabjit Kaur & others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.G.S.Sirphikhi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Aman Bahri, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3. Mr.V.S.Kataria, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by 57 petitioners, who are seeking a direction that roll numbers/admit cards be issued to them and they be allowed to sit in the Auxiliary Nurses & Mid-wives Course (for short, the 'ANM course') theory examinations, commencing from January, 2013.2. In view of the fact that the writ petition came up for hearing on 21.01.2013, for the first time, interim orders were passed permitting the petitioners to appear in the examination which were commencing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CWP No.17785 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17785 of 2012 Reserved on:28. 05.2014 Date of decision:11. 07.2014 M/s. IAA Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and another ...Petitioner(s) Versus The Authorized Officer, UCO Bank and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anupam Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Nandini Nanda, Advocate, and Mr. Gautam Pathania, Advocate, for respondent No.1-UCO Bank. Mr. Karan Khehar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate, for respondent No.4.1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?. Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.1. The present judgment shall dispose of 3 writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 17785, 14741 and 15248 of 2012 since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. The facts are being taken from CWP No.177...
Tag this Judgment!