Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H360; [1963(6)FLR99]; (1963)IILLJ14P& H
D. Falshaw, C. J.1. This is an appeal under Clause (10) of the Letters Patent against the order of Shamsher Bahadur, J. dismissing an appeal filed by the Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi, against the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, acting as Judge of the Employees' State Insurance Court under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act of 1948.2. The matter is rather an old one since it arises from the fact that an employee of the appellant company named Banke Lal was on authorised leave without pay for the periods (i) from the 17th to the 30th of November 1952, (ii) from the 1st to the 14th of December 1952 and (iii) from the 22nd to the 28th of December 1952. The Act provides for the payment by the employer in the first instance of both employer's and employee's contributions to the fund at the rates specified in the schedule to the Act, but authorises with certain limitations the recovery by the employer from the employee of the latter's contribu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1977]40STC333(P&H)
A.S. Bains, J.1. In this reference there is no controversy on facts which are briefly stated as under :The assessee-firm Messrs. Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Limited are engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton/woollen dryer felts at Faridabad. The assessee-firm is registered both under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It also deals in inter-State sales and the first such sale was effected on 26th April, 1971. A notice under the Act was given to the firm by the Assessing Authority for its liability to pay sales tax but the assessee-firm contested its liability on the ground that the products (i. e., dryer felts) manufactured by it fell into the category of tax-free goods being covered by item 30 of Schedule B of the Act and claimed that it was not liable to get itself registered either under the Act or under the Central Sales Tax Act. This contention of the assessee-firm was not accepted by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2003]117CompCas660(P& H)
J.S. Khehar, J.1. The respondents (herein) on the basis of a dispute, which had arisen between them and the appellants, filed Company Petition No. 76 of 1999 before the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi, under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 praying for relief on account of alleged oppression/mismanagement at the hands of the appellants. During the course of the proceedings before the Company Law Board, the appellants, on 24.08.1999, sought permission of the Company Law Board to move an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Arbitration Act 1996') for reference (of the controversy raised by the respondents in Company Petition No. 76 of 1999) to arbitration. On the aforesaid request, the Company Law Board granted the appellant time up to 04.09.1999 to move an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. No such application was, however, filed within the allotted time. After all effor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1993)104PLR18
V.K. Jhanji, J.1. This is plaintiffs' Letters Patent Appeal.Balwant Singh father of the defendants was the owner of land measuring 153 K. 19 M. i. e. the suit land. On 22.7.1964 he entered into agreement to sell land measuring 32-B, 6 B, 3-B with Arjan Singh, plaintiff No. 3. The sale price was fixed at Rs. 500/- per bigha. The Sale Deed was agreed to be executed on or before 15.6.1966. ' A sum of Rs. 1600/- was paid as stipulated under the agreement dated 22 7.1964. However, the same could not be executed because of some civil suit which was filed by Nihal Singh and Atma Singh against Balwant Singh. The suit was finally dismissed in the year 1967. On the asking of Balwant Singh, Arjan Singh paid another sum of Rs. 14,000/- in addition to Rs. 16,000/- which was paid under the agreement. Balwant Singh died on 11.2.1968. On his death, his son Surinder Singh executed another agreement to sell on 17 10.1968 in favour of plaintiffs to sell land measuring 153 K. 19 M. The agreement was execu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)139PLR238
Surya Kant, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 4328 and 4345 of 2002, as not only common questions of facts and law are involved in these two Appeals but both have been directed against the same judgment and decree dated 30.4.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar and affirmed by the learned District Judge, Ropar vide his judgment and decree dated 26.7.2002. Needless to say that these Appeals have originated out of Civil Suit No. 65 of 2001 filed by Dasmesh Educational Society (Regd.).2. Facts are being taken from R.S.A. No. 4328 of 2002.3. The material facts emanating the cause of action as mentioned in the plaint are that the Dasmesh Educational Society (Regd.) (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1) instituted the Civil Suit No. 65 of 2001 against (i) the State of Punjab through its Secretary, Housing, (ii) Punjab Housing Urban Development Board through its Vice Chairman, (iii) Punjab Urban Development Authority thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)12VST149(P& H)
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. This matter has been placed for hearing before us in pursuance of order of the honourable Supreme Court dated July 14, 2006 in C. A. No. 3453 of 2002 and connected matters reported in Jindal Stainless Limited v. State of Haryana : (2006)7SCC271 [hereinafter referred to as 'Jindal Stainless Limited (3)'].2. Appeals before the honourable Supreme Court arose from the judgment of this Court dated December 21, 2001, Jindal Strips Limited v. State of Haryana reported in [2003] 129 STC 534 (P&H;).3. When the appeal against judgment of this Court was placed for hearing before a Bench of the honourable Supreme Court, correctness of the view taken by the honourable Supreme Court in earlier judgment in Bhagatram Rajeev Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1995] 96 STC 654 : [1995] Supp 1 SCC 673, which was followed in State of Bihar v. Bihar Chamber of Commerce : [1996]2SCR184 , was doubted and the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench to decide with certitude, the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1966P& H185
Mehar Singh, J.1. The two appellants Rajindar Prashad and Khub Chand, are owners of 795 acres of agricultural land, the whole of it under tenants, in village Odian, Tehsil Fazilka of Ferozepur District. On April 15, 1953, the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Act 10 of 1953), hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act', came into force. It gave protection to tenants against ejectment except on grounds specified in Section 9. Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of section 9 reads--'Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no land-owner shall be competent to eject a tenant except when such tenant is a tenant on the area reserved under this Act or is a tenant of a small land-owner.'In section 2(3) the expression 'permissible area' has been defined. The definition reads--' 'Permissible area' in relation to a landowner or a tenant, means thirty standard acres and where such thirty standard acres on being converted into ordinary acres exceed sixt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1972P& H65
Prem Chand Jain, J.1. The short question that requires determination in these cases may be stated thus :-Does an appeal lie under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the decision of a learned Single Judge in appeal filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Claims Tribunal) given under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ?2. The view of this Court as is evident from the Bench decision in Fazilka Dabwali Transport Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Madan Lal, (1968) 70 Pun LR 9 = (AIR 1968 Punj 277), is that such an appeal is not competent under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. At the time of the preliminary hearing, the correctness of the said Bench decision was challenged and on the strength of a Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kuldip Lal Bhandari, (1969) 71 Pun LR (Delhi Section) 318 = (AIR 1970 Delhi 37) (FB), it was contended that an appeal by u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
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
Reported in : (2007)146PLR685; (2007)5VST308(P& H)
1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated February 28, 2005 (annexure P 6), passed by respondent No. 2, Excise and Taxation Officer, Information Collection Centre, Balongi District, Ropar.2. By the said order, penalty has been imposed on the petitioner by recording a finding that the petitioner attempted to evade tax, by declaring in the invoice, accompanying the goods under transport, that the goods were liable to tax at the last stage while as per provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act'), the goods were liable to tax at first stage.3. Case of the petitioner is that it is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Act at Mohali. It deals in goods manufactured from cast iron and is also a consignment agent of Electro-steel Castings Limited, Kolkata (West Bengal) for cast iron items.4. On February 24, 2005, the petitioner sent one consignment of goods to a Pathankot dealer through Shiv Shakti Transport Company from its place of business, i.e....
Tag this Judgment!