Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1985P& H43
1. This is defendants' appeal against whom the suit for declaration and the grant of the permanent injunction has been decreed by the trial Court.2. The plaintiff Chetan Dev. proprietor, M/s. Ahuja Thread Mills, filed the suit for a declaration to the effect that the alleged infringement to which the threats of the defendants towards the plaintiff relate, was, in fact, not the infringement of any legal rights of the defendants, and permanent injunction restraining them from continuing their threats towards the plaintiff and desisting therefrom. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he was the sole proprietor of M/s. Ahuja Thread Mills, and dealt with the manufacture and sale of threads for the last more than two years while the defendants were the manufacturers and representatives of M/s. Madura Coats Ltd., also dealing with the sale of threads. It was also alleged that the plaintiff, about two years ago, manufactured thread with the trade mark 'Swastik Super-shine 50' with the insignia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)IIILLJ628P& H
ORDERM.M. Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of C.W.P.Nos. 2267 and 2289 of 1988. Both the petitions are directed against the award dated August 7, 1987 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh. The first petition has been filed by the Employees Union of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (for brevity 'PGI Union') and the second petition has been filed by the P.G.I. (for brevity 'the Management'). The Industrial Tribunal vide its award has held that the strike w.e.f. January 16, 1980 to February 3, 1980 although conformed to the provisions of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act') yet it was not justified. On sympathetic consideration, the Tribunal has awarded 25 per cent of back wages for the strike period. Various other demands of the PGI Union have also been considered and certain directions have been issued.2. Brief facts of the case are that on September 9, 1980, the PGI Union served a demand notice whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1996)113PLR339
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. To some people State is essentially a class-structure, an organization of one class dominating over the other classes; others regard it as an organization that transcends all classes and stands for the whole community. They regard it as a power-system. Some view it entirely as a legal structure, either in the old Austrinian sence which made it a relationship of governors and governed, or, in the language of modern jurisprudence, as a community, ' organized for action under legal rules'. Some regard it as no more than a mutual insurance society, others as the very texture of all our life. Some class the state as a great ' corporation' and others consider it as indistinguishable from society itself.(Mac Iver, 'The Modern State')2. During recent times, the concept of State has undergone drastic changes. Today, State cannot be conceived of simply as a coercive machinery wielding the power of authority for simply collecting tax or for enforcing law and order. It now carri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2009)221CTR(P& H)225; [2009]309ITR194(P& H); [2009]177TAXMAN103(Punj& Har)
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. This petition questions application of transfer pricing provisions in Chapter X of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') to the petitioner and quashing of notices under Sections 148 and 92CA(3) of the Act.2. Case set out in the petition is that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of USA and is, thus, a foreign company under Section 2(23A) of the Act. It has a branch office in India. It is a part of International Coca Cola Corporate Group. The said group has other companies operating in India incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.3. The petitioner obtained permission under Section 29(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) to operate a branch office in India to render services to Coca Cola Group companies, as per conditions mentioned in the application for the said permission. There is a service agreement between the petitioner on the one hand and Britco Foods Company (P) Ltd. (Britco) on the other. As per the said agr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2009)156PLR446
Vinod K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 8.4.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, on an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for setting aside the award dated 19.10.2006.2. Along with the application, the petitioner moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act. The petitioner pleaded, that the award dated 19.10.2006 was passed by the Arbitrator ex parte, and that no notice was issued to the petitioner with regard to arbitration proceedings. Even after passing of the award, no notice was issued to him. The case of the petitioner was that he was admitted in PGI, Chandigarh, and, therefore, could not file application under Section 34, after the receipt of notice of execution. It was pleaded, that there is sufficien...
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
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
Reported in : (2007)5VST12(P& H)
1. This petition seeks declaration of provisions of Section 61(2)(e) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'the HVAT Act'), as amended by the Haryana Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2004, to be ultra vires and for quashing of order of assessment dated November 8, 2004 passed by the Assessing Authority, Karnal (annexure P3).2. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, 'the 1973 Act') and the HVAT Act. The Assessing Authority made assessment for the year 2002-03 by including the turnover of sales of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (in short, 'DEPB') issued by the customs authorities under the DEPB Scheme.3. The contention raised in the writ petition is that right to credit of duty, as is granted under the DEPB Scheme, is not 'goods' and provisions under Section 61(2)(e) of the HVAT Act to the effect that tax is to be charged on sale or purchase thereof was beyond the legislative competence under entry 54, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1973]31STC235(P& H)
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notices, annexures B, B-l and B-2, dated 5th June, 1972, issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, for reassessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The facts of this writ petition in brief are that the petitioner is a registered firm under the Act and it deals in laboratory chemicals and laboratory apparatus, such as beakers, test tubes, flasks, jars, graduated cylinders, condensors, etc., for schools, colleges and hospitals. In the year 1967-68, it was assessed to a sales tax of Rs. 15,375.67 at the rate of six per cent, on the goods sold by the petitioner, namely, laboratory chemicals, beakers, test tubes, flasks, gas jars, graduated cylinders, condensors, etc. (annexure A), in the year 1968-69 to Rs. 20,601.71 (annexure A-l) and in the year 1969-70 to Rs. 25,508.49 (annexure A-2). The Assessing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2006)143PLR432
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.C.M. No. 365-C of 1998:1. The legal representatives of appellant Jeet Ram, who had died on 5.4.1991, during the pendency of this Regular Second Appeal, filed by him have filed this application for re-calling the order dated 15.1.1998, passed by this Court, whereby the application (C.M. No. 4681-C of 1997) filed by them under Order 22, Rules 44, 9, and 11 C.P.C. for substituting them as legal representatives of deceased Jeet Ram appellant, after condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement of the appeal, was dismissed in their absence.2. It has been stated in the application that when the aforesaid application i.e. C.M. No. 4681-C of 1997 was called for hearing on 15.1.1998, counsel for the applicants was busy in arguments before a Division Bench, therefore, he could not appear at the relevant time. It has been further stated that in the order dated 15.1.1998, it has been mentioned that the applicants did not seek the condonation of delay in filing the appl...
Tag this Judgment!