Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H221
1. This judgment will dispose of two Letters Patent appeals Nos. 103-D and 108-D of 1950 against the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. Land measuring 2,626 Bighas 14 Biswas situate in village Khampur was acquired by the Government for construction of a Transmitter. The requisite notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 9th February, 1955. Various persons, Including the appellants, who claim to be non-occupancy tenants in a part of the acquired land, put in their claims which werenone into by the Collector who gave his award on 27th February, 1956. A supplementary award was made on 13th March, 1956. The appellants, who were claimants Nos. 35 to 56 before the Collector, objected to the payment of the compensation to their landlords, contending that under the provisions of the Delhi Reforms Act 8 of 1954, they had acquired the status of Bhumidars, and as such were entitled to receive ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1983)ILLJ309P& H
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.1. Whether the construction and maintenance of National and State Highways by the State comes within the ambit of 'industry' as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act is the common and the core question in this set of cases which have been referred to the Full Bench for an authoritative decision.2. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of the identical and pristinely legal question herein this judgment would govern all these cases. It, therefore, suffices to advert to the facts in C.W.P. No. 2826 of 1981 - State of Punjab v. Kuldip Singh. Kuldip Singh, respondent workman therein was appointed on ad hoc basis as a Sectional Officer in the Mechanical Circle of the Building and Roads Branch of the Public Works Department, Patiala, on the May 25, 1973. Vide letter P.1 the appointment of the respondent was purely temporary and liable to be terminated without notice on either side and further it was for only six months or till the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1975)IILLJ19P& H
1. Dr. S. Herbert was employed at the Christian Hospital, Jagadhri, Ambala district, Ambala. On 31st August, 1970, be served the following demand notice on the Chairman. Punjab Synod Medical Board, Francis Newton Hospital, Ferozepur, respondent No. 1:Since I have not been taken on duty despite my personal protest and justified approaches it is, therefore, presumed that you have terminated my services without any notice and without assigning any reason.I am, therefore, constrained to serve upon you with this demand notice that I should be immediately reinstated, otherwise the Board will be responsible for further legal action.Five copies of this demand notice were also sent to the Labour and Conciliation Officer, Yamuna Nagar, who initiated conciliation proceedings which proved abortive. Consequently, the State of Haryana referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Haryana at Rohtak:Whether the termination of services of Dr. S. Herbert w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1953P& H149
ORDERKapur, J.1. This is a rule issued by my Lord the Chief Justice at the instance of sections P. Jaiswal against the Stats and the District Magistrate, Karual, to show cause why the proceedings which have been started under Sections 452 and 147, Penal Code against the petitioner and fourteen others be not quashed under Sections 561A, Criminal P. C.2. The facts briefly stated are that a house which is contiguous to the house of S, P. Jaiswal was originally owned by one Dr. Data Krishan of Karaal and his father Chandar Parkash. On 29-11-1951 this house was purchased by the Karnal Distillery Company, Limited, Karnal. This house bears No. RA-733. In his petition in this Court dated 14-10-1952 which is supported by an affidavit it is stated that this house 'Was in a serious state of disrepair, dilapidated and in a condition that the entire structure and its various portions were liable to collapse by operation of natural causes,' and that the house is 50 years old and being in a dangerous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1961P& H340; [1961]31CompCas338(P& H)
S.B. Capoor, J. 1. The short question for decision in this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, which has been referred to the Full Bench by the learned Judges constituting the Letters Patent Bench, is whether a petition by a displaced person to be compensated in damages for the alleged loss of the goods pledged by him as security for loans advanced by a bank in a cash credit account is maintainable as relating to a 'debt' under the Displaced Pet sons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 (Act No. LXX of 1951), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. 2. The Act came into force in the State of Punjab on the 10th December. 1951. Under Section 13 of the Act, displaced creditors could file claims against persons who are not displaceddebtors at any time within one year after the date of the coming into force of the Act in any local area. On the 9th December. 1952, Ram Lal appellant instituted an application before the Tribunal, constituted under the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1983P& H33
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. 1. Is the rule of audi alteram partem attracted inflexibly to the exercise of the power of dissolution of an Improvement Trust under Section 103 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the spinal issue which has come to the fore in this set of 8 writ petitions assiduously assailing the dissolution of as many as 21 Improvement Trusts at one stroke within the State of Punjab by a single notification?2. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issues of law are identical and the facts giving rise thereto are closely similar. It, therefore, suffices to advert briefly to those in Civil Writ Petition No. 2856 of 1980(Jagdish Rai Monga v. The State of Punjab). Petitioner No. 1 was the Chairman whilst the other three were the trustees of the recently dissolved Bhatinda Improvement Trust. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed Chairman initially for a period of one year vide notification dated 4th August, 1978 and was reappointed as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)120PLR666
H.S. Bedi, J.1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Saluja Mukesh Kumar 2013.09.16 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.11386 o1. HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.11386 of 1997 Date of decision:05.08.2013 The National Jattan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd...Petitioner(s) Versus The Joint Secretary, Cooperation (Appeals) Punjab and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK 1 To be referred to the Reporters or No.?.2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?. Present: Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Mehta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 23.1.1995 (Annexure P-5) and the order dated 28.11.1996 (Annexure P-6) passed by the respondent authorities, thereby directing reinstatement of respondent No.4 in the service of petitioner-society, the present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1966]18STC240(P& H)
ORDERS.K. Kapur, J.1. The following three questions of law have been referred by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, by his order dated 30th October, 1958, under Section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union territory of Delhi :- (a) Whether Section 29 of the Limitation Act applies to revision applications under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi. (b) If the answer to (a) be in the affirmative, does Section 29 of the Limitation Act enlarge the scope of Section 12(2) of the said Act, so as to make it applicable to revision, which is not a proceeding mentioned in that section. (c) Whether apart from Sections 29 and 12(2) of the Limitation Act, the mere requirement of Rule 62 under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to Delhi, that every revision application should be accompanied.by a copy of the order, is sufficient justification by itself to exclude the time taken in obtaining such a copy, for the purposes of cal...
Tag this Judgment!