Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-08-1954
Reported in : AIR1956P& H141
Falshaw, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has arisen in the following circumstances. The respondent Prithi Raj claims to be a displaced per. son from Lahore now residing at Delhi where he carries on the business of a building contractor. In 1949 he entered into a contract with the negistered society known as the Jamia Millia Islamia for the construction of a Teachers' Training Institute Hostel and according to his allegations completed the building in July 1951.He claimed that allowing for payments made by the Society and the material supplied by it a sum of Rs. 1,97,000/- was still due to him and he therefore filed a petition before a Tribunal constituted under Act LXX of 1951 under Section 13 of that Act which deals with the claims by displaced creditors against persons who are not displaced debtors.The claim was resisted by the Society which denied that the subject-matter of the claim was a debt within the meaning of the Act, and also applied for the stay of proceedings before the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jun-07-1954
Reported in : [1954]26ITR375(P& H)
ORDERCHOPRA, J. - The facts giving rise to this reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, are these : the assessee company, M/s. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd., Dadri, before it was started entered into an agreement with the Ruler of the erstwhile Jind State, on 1st April, 1938. The document was duly executed and signed by one of its promoters on behalf of the company and by the then Chief Minister on behalf of the State Government. By clause (1) of the agreement, the State granted and conferred upon the company termed as licensee the sole and exclusive monopoly right of manufacturing cement in the Jind State, both for consumption in the State and for exporting outside, on the terms and conditions for a period of twenty-five years commencing from the date of agreement and gave an option to the licensee to renew it for successive periods of twenty-five years each up to an aggregate of 100 years counted from 21st July, 1936. Besides other benefits that the State or its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jun-23-1954
Reported in : AIR1955P& H145
Harnam Singh, J.1. In order to appreciate the points that arise fox decision in First Appeal from order No. 2 of 1959 the facts of the case may be set out in some detail.2. On 20-1-1943 Ganga Ram appellant and Radha Kishan respondent referred the dispute between them to the arbitration of Shri Girdhari Lal by agreement, Exhibit P. 1. On the following day Shri Girdhari Lal made the award, Exhibit P. 2, which was signed by both parties and presented for registration. In the office of the Sub Registrar Radha Kishan paid Rs. 250/- to Ganga Ram in accordance with the conditions of the award, Ex, P. 2. No further action seems to have been taken by the parties till 23-6-1944, when Radha Kishan instituted Civil Suit No. 313 of 1944 for declaration that by the award, Exhibit P. 2, he had become owner of the property subject to a charge of the dafendant to the extent of Rs. 3,000/-. That suit was decreed by the Sub-Judge on 18-1-1947. On appeal from the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 319 of 194...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-02-1954
Reported in : AIR1954P& H271
Harnam Singh, J.1. In order to appreciate the point of law that arises for decision in Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 1952 it is necessary to set out the facts of the case in some detail.2. Shri Bansi Lal, Income-tax Officer, forwarded to the Collector Certificate, Exhibit P.Y, under Section 46(2), Income-tax Act, 1922, specifying that Rupees 1,75,627-10-0 were due from Messrs. Rur Chand Kishori Lal assessee on account of arrears of Income-tax, super-tax and penalty. In forward-ing the certificate, Exhibit P.Y, Shri Bansi Lal sent letter, Exhibit P.X., to the Collector, Jullun-dur, stating that the amount specified in the certificate should be recovered from the movable and immovable property of Rur Chand.In that letter the Income-tax Officer maintained that, Rur Chand being the sole proprietor of Messrs. Ralla Ram Raj Kumar, the movable and immovable property of Messrs. Raila Bam Raj Kumar was liable to attachment and sale for the recovery of the amounts specified in the certificate....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jun-15-1954
Reported in : AIR1955P& H22
Harnam Singh, J.1. By this order I dispose of Regular First appeal no. 195 of 1951 and the cross-objections arising therefrom.2. Shrimati Santi instituted Civil Suit No. 147 of 1948 on the 1st of April, 1948. In that suit Shrimati Santi claimed possession of shop No. 148 situate in Bartanganj, Moga Mandi, and for the recovery of rupees 2,400/- on account of arrears of maintenance for the past year. In the alternative Shrimati Santi claimed in that suit maintenance at the rate of rupees 200/- per mensem for life and a charge on shop No. 148 for the -payment of that maintenance.3. In resisting the suit the defendants raised pleas which gave rise to the following issues on merits:'1. Was Budh Rani not a member of the joint Hindu family of the defendants at the time of his death? 2. Is the shop in dispute joint family property? 3. Did Ganga Ram create a charge on the shop for the maintenance and residence of the plaintiff? 4. What is the amount of the maintenance due to the plaintiff per m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-13-1954
Reported in : AIR1955P& H18; 1955CriLJ318
Bishan Narain, J.1. The only point that requires consideration in this case is whether the petitioner ig entitled to the restoration of his property which was attached under Section 88. Criminal Procedure Code.2. The present petitioner was wanted in a murder case and a proclamation under Section 87, Criminal Procedure Code, was issued on 13th Juno 1950 ordering him to appear before tha Court within 30 days from the date of its issue. The proclamation was published on 29th of June 1950. On the date the proclamation was issued, i.e., 13th of June 1950 the Court also ordered attachment of moveable and immovable property under Section 88, Criminal Procedure Code. His moveables were attached on 29th June 1950 and were sold on 12th March 1951 for Rs. 178/7/-while his immovable property was attached on 30th August 1950 and is still under attachment.It appears that the petitioner voluntarily surrendered himself or was apprehended and brought before the Court on 15th April 1951. He was tried un...
Tag this Judgment!