Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-19-1996
Reported in : (1997)115PLR643
R.L. Anand, J.1. By this judgment I dispose of two Civil Revision Nos. 3079 of 1995 (Harbans Singh Kohli and Ors. v. Man Singh and Ors.), and 3797 of 1995 (Man Singh and Anr. v. H.S. Kohli and Ors.) as both these revision petitions have arisen from one judgment dated 7th June, 1995, passed by the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana, who partly accepted the appeal of the plaintiffs (petitioners of C.R. No. 3797 of 1995) and allowed in part the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., filed by the plaintiffs Man Singh and Paramjit Singh Bhatia, who are the petitioners of C.R. No. 3797 of 1995, and granted temporary injunction in their favour restraining the sale of 1292 equity shares of the land measuring 1200 sq. yards till the disposal of the suit against the defendants, i.e., H.S. Kohli; H.S. Kohli and Sons - H.U.F. Firm; Smt. Arvinder Kaur Kohli and M/s Preet Builders Private Limited. It may be mentioned here that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 aforesaid have filed a separate Civil Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-12-1996
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
Decided on : Feb-22-1996
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ338P& H
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The issue raised in this writ petition relates to the scope of power vesting in the Government under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and although the Apex Court and various High Courts have rendered several judgments on the issue, it has become necessary to examine the matter in detail keeping in view the fact that the functionaries of the Labour Departments of the Governments of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Union Territory of Chandigarh have consistently ignored the law laid down by the Apex Court while deciding whether a dispute raised by the workman or the workers' union should be referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court or not. Looking to the importance of the issue, we gave notices to the Advocates General of Punjab and Haryana and called upon them to assist the Court in decid-ingthe issue.2. In the writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged order Annex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-27-1996
Reported in : (1997)115PLR589
R.S. Mongia, J.1. The services of respondent Kali Dass -workman allegedly terminated by the petitioner-management on February 29, 1981. He served a demand notice more than seven years thereafter on August 20, 1991. The dispute was referred by the Government on May 7, 1992, to the Labour Court for adjudication as to whether the Management terminated the services of workmen or not? If so to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled? The case of the respondent-workman before the Labour Court was that he had been engaged on muster roll on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs. 14/- per day as pump Operator and Chowkidar at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day. His services were terminated on February 29, 1984, without any notice charge-sheet or enquiry or retrenchment compensation. The case of the petitioner-management was that the workman had not even put in 240 days and in fact he remained absent and his services were not terminated. He had not been given any appointment letter and no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-11-1996
Reported in : [2002]125STC326(P& H)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. These petitions have been filed to challenge the legality of the notification dated September 2, 1993 whereby enhanced lump-sum tax has been imposed on the petitioners with effect from October 1, 1992.2. For the purpose of this order, it will be sufficient to narrate a few facts from C.W.P No. 11994 of 1996.3. The petitioner, Ranbir Singh Ram Gopal, has been manufacturing bricks in village Ladrawan, District Rohtak. In terms of Section 26 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 39-A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short, 'the Rules'), the petitioner has been paying lump-sum tax at the rates prescribed by the Government from time to time. By notification dated August 27, 1990, the amount of lump-sum tax was fixed for the period from April 1, 1988 to September 30, 1992. On September 14, 1992, the Government of Haryana issued a draft notification for revising the rates of the lump-sum tax. However, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-15-1996
Reported in : (1997)116PLR447
M.S. Liberhan, J.1. The undisputed skeletal morsel facts as provided by learned counsel for the parties during the course of arguments to dispose of the letters patent appeals and regular first appeals of the claimants as well as the State, run thus.2. The land of villages Kala Ghanu Pur, Hamidpur, Ghumanpura, Kalhania and Wadala Bhitewad were acquired for 'extension of cantonment' at Amritsar vide notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 10.6.1977, 22.7.1977 1.6.1977, 22.7.1977 and 5.5.1978 respectively. The area of land acquired from village to village ranged from about 119 kanals to 11513 kanals. The collector vide his award dated 28.3.1978 with respect to village kala Ghanu Pur treating the land as agricultural awarded compensation @ Rs. 16,500/- per acre for Chahi, Rs. 12,000/- per acre for Barani, Rs. 6000/- per acre for Banjar Qadim and Rs. 5000/per acre for Ghair Mumkin. The collector vide his award dated 28.3.1978 with respect to village Hamidpur a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-24-1996
Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ1163P& H; (1996)114PLR74
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.1. This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated May 14, 1981 as confirmed by the Central Government in the order of the Legal Adviser dated May 15, 1982.2. The Petitioner is an establishment engaged in manufacturing of artificial limbs to meet the requirement of disabled individuals. It employed more than 20 persons in the establishment. The disabled persons come to the petitioner-centre for getting the artificial limbs fixed. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by his order dated May 14, 1981 vide Annexure P-l applied the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The Petitioner raised an objection that it is hospital and falls under the category of hospitals and, therefore, the provisions of the said Act are not applicable, but both the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Central Government held that the petitioner-centre is not a Hospital, but covered by item No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-07-1996
Reported in : (1997)115PLR410
Sarojnei Saksena, J.1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-31-1996
Reported in : 1997(57)ECC60; (1996)113PLR250
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. The petitioner's request for the grant of Custom Duty Exemption Certificate having been declined by the Director General of Health Services (Respondent No. 2), it has approached this court through the present writ petition. It prays that the order, dated December 26, 1994, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.6 with he writ petition, be quashed and the respondents be directed to grant the Exemption Certificate. A few facts as are necessary for the disposal of the case may be noticed.2. In June 1992, the petitioner started work towards the setting up of a Cardiac Diagnostic Centre at Chandigarh. The equipment for Stress Test System, Colour Doppler and Holter Monitor Recorder was to be installed. Since this equipment was required to be imported, the petitioner submitted an application for the grant of custom Duty Exemption Certificate under the provisions of the Notification dated March 1, 1988, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-19-1996
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ931P& H; (1997)115PLR518
Sarojnei Saksena, J.1. Applicant-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, the Act) against the impugned order dated January 14, 1980, whereby its petition filed under Section 75(i)(g) of the Act was dismissed.2. Brief resume of the facts of the case is that the applicant-appellant started running its establishment from December 1, 1975. As more than 30 persons were working in this establishment applicant-appellant sent a letter on January 15, 1976, to the respondent-Corporation to give it a code number, so that necessary contributions under the Act may be deposited with the Corporation. Thereafter several reminders were also sent to the Corporation but code number was issued to the applicant-appellant by the Corporation on April 12, 1978. On April 16, 1973, the respondent-corporation sent the demand notice specifying that the applicant-appellant has not deposited the employer's as well as employees' contributions under t...
Tag this Judgment!