Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-25-1971
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
Decided on : Mar-15-1971
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
Decided on : Jan-08-1971
Reported in : AIR1972P& H72
P.C. Pandit, J. 1. This order will dispose of three connected Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 299, 300 and 485 of 1970. It is conceded by the counsel for the parties that the decision in Letters Patent Appeal No. 299 of 1970 will govern the other appeals as well.2. Jaisi Ram was the owner of the land in dispute. He filed four writ petitions (Nos. 2361 to 2364 of 1963) under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution against his tenants on four different parcels of land. His prayer was that the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, conferring proprietary rights on the tenants under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, hereinafter called the Act, in each case be quashed. All these petitions came up for hearing before C. G. Suri, J. and since the questions of law and fact involved in them were similar and the Revenue Authorities had also taken up those cases together, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petitions by one judgment. All those petitions were dismissed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-15-1971
Reported in : AIR1972P& H99
Gurdev Singh, J. 1. The question for the consideration of this Full Bench may be stated thus:--'Whether a vendee who has joined with him a stranger in purchasing agricultural land or immovable property can by acquiring the interest of the stranger co-vendee by gift or sale successfully resist a suit for pre-emption in view of the provisions of Section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?'2. It has arisen in the following manner:--Gharib Singh, Harnam Singh, Partap Singh and Kartar Singh, four sons of Kishna, jointly held 225 Kanals 9 Marlas of agricultural land situate in village Kiampur. Kartar Singh having died, his son Harchand Singh sold his 1/4 th share to his uncle Graham Singh and his wife Shrimati Gurnam Kaur by a registered sale deed, dated 15th March, 1966 (Exhibit D. A.) for Rs.4000/-. On 15th March, 1967, Harnam Singh, a brother of Gharib Singh vendee, brought suit for pre-emption on the plea that he was a cosharer and also near collateral of the vendor Harchand Singh....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-24-1971
Reported in : [1973]90ITR297(P& H)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ' B ', has referred the following questions of law for our opinion:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of a sum of Rs. 8,645 representing commission paid on borrowing shares for purposes of pledging them as security with the income-tax department for securing stay of recovery of certain taxes, in the computation of profits and gains of business of the assessee-company ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of a sum of Rs. 6,174 being the legal expenses incurred by the company in the relevant previous year in connection with income-tax matters as a permissible deduction under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was competent to substitute the figure of Rs. 3,73,075 as the amount of loss ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-24-1971
Reported in : AIR1972P& H50
Harbans Singh, C.J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writs No. 2559 of 1969, 3575, 3576, 3577, 3640, 3641, 3642 and 3643 of 1970, 10, 1209, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1221, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254, 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1323, 1324, 1328, 1344, 1408, 1416, 1490, 1572, 1616 and 1679 of 1971 as they involve common questions of law and fact.2. In all the above mentioned writ petitions the point raised is whether the State Government can under the relevant law and the rules exploit shora (saltpetre) found in the soil or on the surface of the lands belonging either to the individuals or to the Gram Panchayats. Civil Writ 1221 of 1971 would be taken as a typical case where the land belonged to an individual and Civil Writ 1328 of 1971 as a typical case where the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat concerned.3. We will first take up Civil Writ 1221 of 1971. On 25th February, 1971, a notification was issued by the Department of Industries, Haryana, notifying for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-25-1971
Reported in : AIR1972P& H232
ORDER1. This Letters Patent appeal under Clause 10 challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17th March, 1967, by which a writ petition filed by the appellants under Art. 226 of the Constitution, was dismissed.2. The admitted facts are that Harchand Singh, father of the appellants, was at one time the owner of the entire village of Nanahri in Hissar district. This village was acquired by the Government for the settlement of displaced persons from Bhakra reservoir area. A compensation of over two lacs of rupees was awarded on the 31st of August, 1956 to the appellants for the land acquired from their father. The appellants thus became land less persons. They then purchased an area of 377 Bighas and 9 Biswas for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- from their father's sister, Dhan Kaur on 22nd March, 1958. It is stated that collaterals of Dhan Kaur filed a suit for pre-emption which was decreed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court and it was only ultimately in this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-27-1971
Reported in : AIR1972P& H46
1. This execution second appeal raises an interesting question regarding the true construction to be placed on the Government notification No. 6487-ICI-65/29820, dated the 30th July, 1965, issued under Section 3 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.2. The facts are not in dispute. Tek Chand appellant had completed the construction of the premises in dispute in March, 1960. The suit for ejectment was instituted on the 12th of February, 1963, and it seems a tortuous trial followed and it was not till the 14th of August, 1969, that the decree was granted in favour of the appellant landlord. Thereafter the appellant moved the application for the execution of the decree abovesaid and objections were filed thereto by the judgment-debtor under Section 47, Civil P. C., alleging that in view of the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and also otherwise in law the decree was not executable. On behalf of the appellant-decree-holder it was also contended that the objecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-15-1971
Reported in : AIR1972P& H83
R.S. Narula, J.1. I propose to dispose of by this judgment 97 writ petitions which were heard together along with Letters Patent Appeal No. 762 of 1970. These writ petitions have to be divided into four groups in order to facilitate reference to the separate set of arguments advanced in respect of each group. The prayer in all these petitions is to quash the orders of the Collector, Kaithal, district Karnal, determining the leases of the respective parcels of land of which possession had been taken by the Collector under Section 3 of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act (38 of 1949) (hereinafter called the Act), and which land had therefore been leased out to different persons for a period of twenty years. The first group is comprised of 57 petitions (Civil Writs Nos. 1376, 1377, 1383 to 1386, 1395, 1416, 1432, 1433, 1459, 1471, 1482, 1491, 1521, 1549, 1550, 1559, 1573, 1604, 1607, 1651 to 1654, 1669, 1670, 1672, 1694, 1713, 1752, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1791, 1817, 1836, 1944, 2000, 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-21-1971
Reported in : AIR1973P&H62
Tuli, J.1. This Petition came up for hearing before my learned brethren Narula and Suri JJ. and the learned Judges referred it for decision to a larger Bench by an order dated November. 19, 1970, principally because Suri J., doubted the correctness of some earlier Division Bench judgments of this Court. In pursuance of that reference order this petition has been placed for hearing before this Full Bench.2. The petitioner-firm gave the highest bid for the country liquor vend at Railway Road, Kapurthala, for the years 1969-70 when the auctions were held in the month of March, 1969. The quota fixed for the vend was 11640 proof litres. A pamphlet containing the terms of auction was prepared and circulated amongst the prospective bidders. The relevant conditions of auction are contained in annexure 'A' to the writ petition. In accordance with those conditions, the licence fee for the vend bid by the petitioner-firm amounting to Rupees 2,75,000.00 was to be deposited in the Treasury in twelv...
Tag this Judgment!