Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents act 1970 39 of 1970 section 150 security for costs Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1957

Apr 05 1957 (HC)

Kirpal Shah Sant Singh Vs. Shri Harkishan Das Narsingh Das

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-05-1957

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!

Jan 04 1957 (HC)

Sardar Kapur Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-04-1957

Reported in : AIR1957P& H173

Kapur, J.1. In these two cases (Civil Miscellaneous No. 194-C of 1935 and Supreme Court Appeal No. 2 of 1956) certain questions of law have been referred to a Full Bench by two different Division Benches. In Civil Miscellaneous No. 194-C of 1955 the following question has been referred--'When the High Court refuses to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, does the order of the High Court amount to a judgment or a final order within the meaning of Article 133 of the Constitution and does an appeal lie to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(a) or 133(1)(b) provided the subject-matter of the appeal is worth Rs. 20,000/- or more?'In the Supreme Court Appeal No. 2 of 1956 the two questions which have been referred are--(1) Whether an order passed by this Court de-clining to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution can be regarded as a judgment, decree or final order within the, meaning of Article 133? and(2) Whether the proceeding in which such an order is passed ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1957 (HC)

Surjan Singh Vs. the East Punjab Government

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-31-1957

Reported in : AIR1957P& H265

Bishan Narain, J.1. During the Second World war the Military Authorities required lands near Ferozepore for the purposes of an aerodrome and a landing ground. . The defence Co-ordination Department had by notification dated the 25th of April, 1942 delegated its powers under Rule 75-A made unler the Defence of India Act to the Collector, Ferozepore, who by notification dated the 18th of December, 1942, requisitioned a considerable area of land lying in a number ofvillages near Ferozepore for this purpose, and then by notification dated the 2nd of September, 1943, he acquired 21.12 acres for the purposes of approach road and 926/97 acres for landing ground.This area was acquired on behalf of the Central Government for securing defence of India and for efficient prosecution of the War. Out of this area 162.83 acres were situated in village Ghiniwala, and 123.47 acres out of the acquired area in this village belonged; to Surjan Singh and his real brother Bachan Singh. The land acquired in ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 1957 (HC)

S. Raghbir Singh Sandhawalia Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-24-1957

Reported in : AIR1958P& H250

A.N. Bhandari, C. J. The following question has been referred to this Court under Section 66 (1) of the Income-Tax Act, namely :'Whether the gift of a joint family asset worth Rs. 2,40,000/- by Shri Raghbir Singh, karta of the family, to his wife, Sardarni Ahalya Bai, not being a transfer for consideration or in pursuance of any ante-nuptial arrangement or in connection with any arrangement to live apart, is valid and effective to divest the family of its title to the said shares without the consent of the other adult coparcener, Shri Raghbir Singh's son Shri Harindar Singh?'2. Sardar Raghbir Singh assessee and hia only son Sardar Harindar Singh are members of a Hindu undivided family which possesses landed and other property, the value of which runs into several millions.3. Sardar Raghbir Singh's wife Sardarni Sujan Kaur died in the year 1943 and he contracted a marriage with Sardarni Ahalya Bai in or about the year 1945. On the 31st March 1949 the assessee made a transfer entry in th...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //