Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-10-1995
Reported in : (1995)111PLR445
G.C. Garg, J.1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions 4993 of 1985; 126, 127, 128, 202, 232, 427 and 2975 of 1980; 5248, 5249, 5363, 5364, 5365, 5366, 5367, 5368 and 1569 of 1982; 189 of 1983; 661 and 4943 of 1984 and 5771 of 1987. Petitioners in this bunch of twenty-one writ petitions are registered dealers within the meaning of Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'Punjab Act'). The main controversy raised in these writ petitions is common, namely, whether sugarcane purchased by the petitioners directly from the growers thereof is subject to levy of purchase tax under the Punjab Act.2. The petitioners are the Sugar Mills and are engaged in the manufacture of sugar. They purchase sugar-cane, an agricultural produce from the growers thereof directly, Gunny bags purchased by the petitioners are used as packing material for sugar and are sold with sugar. Some other stores are also purchased which are required to carry on the business. Unserviceable stores a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-05-1995
Reported in : (1996)113PLR147
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of injunction dated 12.6.1995 passed by the District Judge, Bhiwani, which he passed while reversing the order dated 9.12.1994 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Charkhi Dadri.2. Suit filed by respondent Kamla Devi for permanent injunction against the petitioner from interfering in her possession over the disputed land and also against the raising of construction in the plot measuring 1 Kanal 1 Maria falling in Khasra No. 488 Khatoni No. 627 is pending in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Charkhi Dadri. The respondent filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of temporary injunction. The defendant-petitioner contested the application and challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff-respondent. After considering the rival cases, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the application. However, in appeal the learned District Judge, Bhiwani reversed the order of the tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-17-1995
Reported in : (1996)112PLR533
R.P. Sethi, J.1. Aggrieved by the orders Annexure P/1, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), the Presiding Authority, Sirsa, dated 12.10.1978 and the order of Collector, Sirsa dated 26.10.1981(Annexure P/2), the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed C.W.P. No. 5117 of 1981 praying therein for quashing the aforesaid two orders (Annexures P/1 and P/2). It was further prayed that pending decision of the writ petition, the dispossession of the writ petitioners and respondent No. 5 therein be stayed. The writ petition was admitted and shown in the regular case list for hearing before the learned Single Judge. It appears that upon application made by the writ petitioners the aforesaid writ petition was added on 1.2.1989 at serial No. 97 on the regular cause list. Upon submissions made by the counsel for the writ petitioners, the case was taken up by the learned Single Judge for hearing in the absence of the counsel for the appellants herein apparently on account of the representation made by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-18-1995
Reported in : AIR1995P& H290; (1995)110PLR625
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 19-9-1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1994 (Balbir Singh v. Guru Nanak Education Trust). The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 19-9-1994 because the learned Additional District Judge has accepted the appeal filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and has dismissed' the injunction application filed by the petitioners.2. In order to determine the various points raised in this petition, it is necessary to make reference to the facts of the case. Guru Nanak Education Trust was registered vide Trust Deed dated 1-6-1969. Originally there were seven trustees and the trust deed contemplated appointment of more trustees. Initially Shri Avtar Singh was the President of the Board of Trustees. He resigned in the year 1970 and was succeeded by Shri Gurnam Singh. Avtar Singh was unanimously elected as President when the said office became vacant due to the death of Sh. Gurnam Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-05-1995
Reported in : (1996)112PLR729
Ashok Bhan, J.1. This order shall dispose of Sales Tax Cases 16 and 17, both of 1986, pertaining to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these cases.2. The facts are taken from S.T.C. 16 of 1986.3. Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') had decided three appeals pertaining to three assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, by passing separate orders. State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') filed three petitions Under Section 42(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for referring certain questions of law arising out of the orders of the Tribunal of this Court for opinion. These petitions were dismissed on 15.10.1985. Copies of the orders passed in the three petitions were supplied to the petitioner on 20.11.1985. Instead of filing three separate petitions Under Section 42(2) of the Act, for issuing a mandamus directin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-20-1995
Reported in : (1996)112PLR487
G.S. Singhvi, J1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.8.1995 passed by the District Judge, Patiala on an appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the order dated 24.8.1995 passed by the Sub-Judge IInd Class, Patiala.2. The petitioner has prayed that the order of the learned District Judge granting ex parte mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 be set aside and the order of the trial Court be restored.3. The facts on which the parties have no dispute are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit on 24.8.1995 for issue of a mandatory injunction directing that defendants (including revision petitioner), their supporters, unionists and party men be made to vacate the factory premises of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and a prayer for grant of permanent injunction was also made for restraining the defendants, their supporters unionist and their party men from entering upon, remaining present and from doing any illegal activities in the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-07-1995
Reported in : (1995)111PLR387
R.P. Sethi, J. 1. Constitutional validity of the Punjab Entertainment Tax (Cinematographic Shows) Amendment Ordinance, 1993, (Ordinance No. 4 of 1993) Punjab Entertainment Duty (Amendment) Ordinance 1993, (Ordinance No. 5 of 1993), notifications issued thereunder and under Punjab Entertainment Tax (Cinematographic Shows) Amendment Act, 1994 and Punjab Entertainments Duty (Amendment) Act, 1994, being Acts Nos. 20 and 21 of 1994, have been challenged in this bunch of writ petitions mainly on the ground of legislative incompetence of the State Governor and the State Legislature. It is submitted that the imposition of lump-sum entertainment duty and Show-Tax was unconstitutional. Constitutional validity has also been challenged on the ground of being contrary to the guarantee of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that vide the impugned provisions, the entertainment-duty and Show Tax have been clubbed together the same being contrary to the con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-18-1995
Reported in : (1995)110PLR120
R.P. Sethi, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the present petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing the ordered Annexure P/l mainly on the ground that the notification dated 17.12.1990 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner's dispensary is not a Hospital or Nursing Home within the meaning of the aforesaid notification. It is alternatively prayed that even if the petitioner is held to be Hospital, the impugned order imposing five times compensation is excessive and unreasonable.2. It is true that the term 'Hospital' has neither been defined in the Minimum Wages Act, (for short the 'Act) or in the notification dated 17.12.1990. Hospital according to the ordinary dictionary meaning is a place or an institution in which patients or injured are given medicine or surgical care either in whole or in part at public expense by Charity. According to Webster's New International Dictionary it mean...
Tag this Judgment!