Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-24-1997
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ1217P& H; (1998)119PLR1
H.S. Brar, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Cenioran quashing the impugned orders Annexures P-1, P-2 and P18 annexed with this writ petition whereby their demand for reference of the matter to the Labour Court has been rejected and the appropriate Government has refused to reconsider the matter. They have further sought an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent State of Haryana to refer the dispute regarding dismissal of their service to the Labour Court for adjudication in accordance with law or any other such writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.2. Brief facts as stated in the petition are that petitioner No. 1, Radhey Shyam, was appointed on December 11, 1966 and was working as PVC operator while petitioner No. 2, Jaswant Singh was w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-30-1997
Reported in : (1998)119PLR292
N.C. Jain, J.1. This judgment of ours would dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 670, 693, 708 to 716 of 1985, 455, 456, 238 of 1986 and 829, 1394 to 1397 of 1991 as they arise out of common award of the Land Acquisition Court and common judgment given by the learned Single Judge.2. In order to appreciate the question involved herein, it is necessary to have a look at the facts of the case. A big chunk of land measuring 205 Acres, 5 Kanals and 15 Marlassituated within the revenue estate of Kherpur on the outskirts of Sirsa town was acquired by the Haryana Government in pursuance of the notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as the 'Act') on April 14, 1976 for the construction of Mini Secretariat, Police Lines and Housing Colony. It appears to us and as was not disputed during the course of arguments that the necessity for acquiring the disputed land arose on account of Sirsa town having been made a district headquarter with effect from 1.9.1975....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-30-1997
Reported in : (1997)117PLR659
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the notices issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority requiring them to pay enhanced compensation in respect of plots allotted to them by respondent No. 1. Since the issue raised in all the cases is identical, we are deciding these petitions by a common order.2. FACTS:CWP No. 13460 of 1992. - In response to the notice issued by respondent No. 1 inviting applications for allotment of residential plots, the petitioner applied for allotment of one kanal plot. Vide Annexure P- 1 dated 11.9.1984, respondent No. 2 communicated the petitioner allotment of Plot No. 321, Sector 4 at Mansa Devi Urban Complex. As per para 9 of the allotment letter price of the plot was stated to be tentative with a stipulation that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately. The petitioner, had deposited Rs. 11,051/- on 8.2.19,84 and another sum of Rs. 1,6,576...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-22-1997
Reported in : (1997)117PLR586
N.K. Kapoor, J.1. Letters Patent Appeals No. 1254 of 1988 and 10 of 1990 filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 2.6.1988 raising common question of law are being disposed of by this judgment.2. State of Punjab vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') dated 26.11.1982 which was published in the government gazette on 27.11.1982 initiated proceedings to acquire land situate in the revenue estate of village Saini Majra, Tehsil and District Ropar, for the construction of Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 6.12.1982 and published in the government gazette on 7.12.1982. Land sought to be acquired measured 48.16 acres. The categories of land acquired are Chahi, Barani, Banjar Qadim and Gair Mumkin.3. Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of the acquired land at the following rates:- Chahi :@ Rs. 31,310/- per acre Barani Bet :@ Rs. 23,480/- per acre Barani Bagh :@ Rs. 23,48...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-29-1997
Reported in : [1999]96CompCas460(P& H)
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J. 1. These two matters arising out of claims for compensation under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, were referred to a Full Bench as it was felt that there were conflicting opinions on the admissibility of the copy of the insurance policy in evidence and the onus to prove the terms of the policy.2. In First Appeal from Order No. 1154 of 1988, the learned judges of a Division Bench of this court noticed the conflicting views taken by two different Division Benches in Jullundur Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Mrs. Raj Wali [1989] 1 PLR 259 ; [1989] ACJ 901 (P&H;) and Oriental Insurance, Co, Ltd. v. Clandrawati [1990] 68 Comp Cas 79 (P&H;) ; [1989] 1 PLR 240 in regard to the production of the copy of the insurance policy and the exhibition thereof by the court without any formal proof of the execution of the policy. The learned judges also observed that another point of 'similar importance regarding the onus to prove the terms of the policy whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-04-1997
Reported in : AIR1998P& H42; (1997)117PLR494
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The caricious attitude and temerity in the action of the luminous bodies like the Central Council of Homoeopathy, Council of Homoeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab, has resulted in disarray and lead to the institution of the present writ petition. Lack of harmoneous working, co-operation and coordination between the State and Central Statutory bodies controlling the education and granting degrees in Homeopopathy and misrepresentation by the Homoeopathic Medical College, Abohar, has caused serious prejudice to the students including the petitioners herein. Attitude of indifference coupled with lack of zeal to do commonweal for the students of homoeopathy and consequently for the public at large has exposed a serious threat to the entire academic career of the students.2. Commensurate to the expected standards of functioning 01 statutory authorities, controlling the standards, professional ethicsand maintenance of education standards, academic curriculum and admiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-29-1997
Reported in : 1997ACJ1081; (1997)117PLR302
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.1. These two matters arising out of claims for compensation under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were referred to a Full Bench as it was felt that there were conflicting opinions on the admissibility of the copy of the Insurance Policy in evidence and the onus to prove the terms of the policy.2. In FAO No. 1154 of 1988 the learned Judges of a Division Bench of this Court noticed the conflicting views taken by two different Division Benches in The Jullundur Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Mrs. Raj Walia and Ors., (1989-1)95 P.L.R. 259 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chandrawati etc., 1989(1) P.L.R. 240, in regard to the production of the copy of the Insurance Policy and the exhibition thereof by the Court without any formal proof of the execution of the policy. The learned Judges also observed that another point of 'similar importance regarding the onus to prove the terms of the policy whether the onus is on the insured or on the Insurance Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-22-1997
Reported in : [1998]234ITR235(P& H)
N.K. Agrawal, J.1. The following questions of law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar (for short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') : '(i) Question in Income-tax Reference No. 20 of 1982 (assessment year 1977-78) : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 28,810 received as solatium did not form part of the consideration for the purpose of working out the capital gain under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the value of the solatium as on January 1, 1954, in computing the capital gains ? (ii) Question in Income-tax Reference No. 75 of 1983 (assessment year 1978-79) : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,353 received as solatium, did ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-06-1997
Reported in : (1997)117PLR553
M.L. Singhal, J.1. This is letters patent appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 272 M of 1995 allowing the husband's appeal and granting his petition for divorce dissolving his marriage by decree of divorce with Smt. Rupinder Kaur, the appellant (herein).2. Facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:Gurjit Singh Sandhu (husband) filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act as amended by Marriage Laws Amendment Act 68 of 1976 against his wife Smt. Rupinder Kaur seeking dissolution of his marriage with her by decree of divorce on the ground of 'cruelty'. It was alleged by the husband that marriage took place on 9.10.1978 between them. She treated him with cruelty. She was short tempered and was creating fuss and scenes in the matrimonial home. She refused to serve him and his relations. She was disrespectful to him and his parents (after the death of her father). She was d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-28-1997
Reported in : 1999ACJ419; (1997)117PLR414
ORDERM.L. Singhal, J.1. This is Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.8.87 in FAO No. 527 of 1983 allowing partly the appeal of Smt. Bhateri and others and awarding them compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation and dismissing the cross-objections Nos. 18-C-II of 1984 of Sarjit Singh Vohra (owner of the offending truck).2. Facts briefly stated are as follows :-On 8.4.82 at about 4.30 P.M., Dharam Singh along with Surat Singh and Maan Singh was coming towards city Karnal from the Intensive Cattle development Project, Karnal on cycle. When he reached near the gate of District Courts, Karnal, truck bearing No. HRD-9295 coming from Ambala side being driven rashly and negligently by Sampuran Singh hit Dharam Singh. As a result of the impact, Dharam Singh received injuries. He died at the spot. Dharam Singh was 24 years old, He was Bull Attendant under Deputy...
Tag this Judgment!