Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1986P& H104
ORDER1. Soon after partition of the country in August 1947, there was influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees from West Pakistan to the Indian Part of the State of Punjab, which was then known as East Punjab, and also to the other parts of the country. To rehabilitate these refugees and also to provide them with vocations, the Legislature of the erstwhile State of East Punjab enacted the East Punjab Refugees Rehabilitation (Building and Building Sites) Act, 1948, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), to enable the State Government to acquire land for the purpose of carving it out into plots for the construction of residential house, shops, cattle sheds, garages, workshops, factories etc. The plots or the buildings constructed by the State Government thereon were to be leased out or sold to the displaced persons from West Pakistan. Under the Act, a residential colony called 'Model Town Jullundur' was planned. While some house were built by the State Government in the said colony and were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1972P& H356
Sandhawalia, J.1. Whether 'brick-earth' has validly been declared to be a minor mineral by virtue of the General Government Notification No. G.S.R. 436, dated the 1st of June, 1958, issue under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, is the important and slightly intricate question which primarily calls for determination in these two connected Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1840 and 2004 of 1970. Identical questions of law and fact arise in these petitions and the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this judgment shall govern both of them.2. The broad outline of the facts is not in dispute. It would suffice to make a reference to the facts in Civil Writ No. 2004 of 1970 only to appreciate the primarily legal contentions which have been raised. The petitioner-firm of Messrs. Amar Singh Modi Lal carries on the business of the manufacture of bricks and is a licensee under the Punjab Control of Brick Supply Order 1956. It installed a brick kiln o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1980P& H1
Prem Chand Jain, J.1. The Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1977 (Act No. 20 of 1977) and the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1978 (Act No. 24 of 1978) were passed by the Haryana State Legislature. By Act No. 20 of 1977, the jurisdictional value of an appeal to the Court of District M Judge from a decree or order of a Subordinate Judge was raised to Rs. 20,000/-, while by Act No. 24 of 1978 it was provided that an appeal from a decree or order of a Subordinate Judge shall lie to the District Judge, irrespective of the value of the original suit. Under Act No. 24 of 1978, an amendment was also made in S. 41 in order to bring the provisions of that section in conformity with the provisions of S. 100 of the Code of Civil procedure. The effect of the amendment in S. 39 under Act No. 24 of 1978 is that all R.F. As pending in this Court shall stand transferred to the Court of the District Judge.2. R.F.A. No. 359 of 1971 (Rajinder Sineh etc. v. Kartar Singh etc.) and R.F.A. No. 67...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2000P& H226; (2000)125PLR649
ORDERIqbal Singh, J.1. Krishan Singh Rana (petitioner) brought a suit for permanent injunction asserting that he is a tenant of the premises in question under Veena Devi. The premises consist of three rooms, bathroom, latrine and Kitchen on the first floor of S.C.F, Nos. 21-22, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh. It was further stated that some dispute had arisen between the landlady Smt. Veena Devi and the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the defendant-Corporation) as a result of which the defendant-Corporation was trying to dispossess the petitioner from the demised premises in spite of the fact that his tenancy rights are protected under the statute and cannot be interfered with by thedefendant-Corporation. In the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seeking an ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit.2. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
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
Reported in : AIR1966P& H16
ORDERI.D. Dua , J.1. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the Punjab Government dated 18-3-1960 according sanction to the sale of the whole of the resin from Government supply to Shiwalik Co-operative Resin and General Mills Limited, Gagret (District Hoshiarpur) respondent No. 2, is mala fide and is hit by the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 39 of the Constitution. According to the petitioner, they and others, connected with this business, have invested no less than Rs. 1. 75 crores and if the impugned order is not set aside, their business would be ruined, because by this order the State Government has created a monopoly in favour of respondent No. 2. The decision of this writ petition is going to affect a large number of factories, which are doing this trade. Besides, certain important questions of constitutional importance arise for decision in this petition. Moreover, whichever party loses here, will go as a matter of right in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H139
Kapur, J. 1. This is appeal against a judgment and decree passed by Mr. Mohindar Singh, Senior Subordinate Judge, affirming the decree of the trial Court holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.2. The plaintiffs were the occupancy tenants under the defendants who are landlords. On the 13th of December, 1945, the landlords brought a suit in a revenue Court for ejectment of the tenants under Section 39 of the Punjab Tenancy Act a suit which was entertainable exclusively by a revenue Court. The following issues were raised in that case.'1. Whether the land in suit is not land as denned in the Tenancy Act and therefore the suit is not cognizable by this Court? Onus on defendants. 2. Whether the buildings on the land were for purposes subservient to agriculture? Onus on defendants. 3. Whether the suit was in time? Onus on plaintiffs. 4. Whether the defendants in case of ejectment were entitled to any compensation for improvement and if so, how much? On...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H9
Harnam Singh, J. 1. This order disposes of Civil Miscellaneous (Writs) Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of 1951.2. Briefly summarised, the material facts are these. On the 17th of February, 1951, respondent No. 1 gave notice under Section 52A of the Indian Insurance Act, 1938, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to the Jupiter General Insurance Company, Limited, Bombay, the Empire of India Life Assurance Company, Ltd., Bombay, and the Tropical Insurance Company, Ltd., New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the companies, that he had reason to believe that the companies were acting in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the interests of holders of life insurance policies of those Companies and informing them that he would hear them on the 26th of February, 1951, in his office in New Delhi, and unless satisfactory cause was shown he would make a report to respondent No. 2 for the appointment of an Administrator to manage the affairs of the companies. Grounds for action under Section 52A of the Act wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1967P& H272
ORDERR.S. Narula, J.1. The inherent jurisdiction of the Sikh Gurdwaras Judicial Commission, Amritsar (hereinafter called the Commission), established under Section 70 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act 1925 (Punjab Act 8 of 1925) (hereinafter called the Act) to issue temporary injunction pendente lite under Order 39 Rule 1 or 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been questioned in this case by Balbir Singh petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution by claiming a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the order of the Commission, dated August 26, 1966 (Annexure 'F'), whereby the petitioner has been restrained from interfering in the day-to-day administration of the Gurdwara and exercising powers conferred on him as President of the Committee of Management of Gurdwara Dera Sahib, Batala, during the pendency of a petition under Section 142 of the Act filed by Manohar Singh respondent No. 2.2. Gurdwaras Dera Sahib and Sat Kartarian at Batala in district Gurdaspur have admitt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1957P& H273
Bishan Narain, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and arises in execution proceedings. The only point that requires determination in this appeal is one of limitation. The factsrelevant for deciding this question are not in dispute and may be stated as follows:--2. During the pendency of cross-suits in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gujranwala, the parties Harkishan Das Chawla and Kirpal Singh referred their disputes to arbitration on 10th October, 1945. On some date not clear on the record an award was made under which Chawla became entitled to recover Rs. 7,000/- from Kirpal Singb. Chawla sought to get the award made rule of the Court. Kirpal Singh filed objections to the award but they were dismissed on 19th November, 1946. A decree in accordance with the award was passed on 30th November, 1946. Kirpal Singh filed an appeal on 14th January, 1947, in the Lahore High Court under section 39(vi) of the Arbitration Act against the order of 19th November, 1946, r...
Tag this Judgment!