1
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-28-1975
Reported in : AIR1975P& H246
Muni Lal Verma, J.1.The question which has been referred by the Division Bench to us for decision, reads thus :--'Whether the mere fact that according to the particular practice prevailing in the High Court before the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Mahant Bikram Das Chela Mahant Lachhman Dass Mahant, Amritsar v. Financial Commr. Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh, (1974) 76 Pun LR 451 = (AIR 1975 Punj & Har 1) (FB) (supra) Letters Patent Appeals were entertained by the office contrary to the requirements of Rule 3 of Chapter 2-C of Volume V of the Rules and Orders of the High Court without being accompanied by three sets of spare paper-books, and time, was allowed to file the same, and for filing the copies even beyond the expiry of the period of limitation the appeals were entertained and admitted does or does not in law constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeals which were filed before the judgment of the Full Bench.'2. The circumsta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-17-1975
Reported in : [1976]38STC144(P& H)
P.C. Jain, J.1. This judgment and order of ours would dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 4065 and 4066 of 1973 and Civil Writ No. 5660 of 1974 as common question of law arises in all these petitions. In order to appreciate the contentions raised before us certain salient features from Civil Writ No. 4066 of 1973 may be noticed.2. The Food Corporation of India and its Senior Regional Manager, Punjab, Chandigarh, have filed this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the assessment orders (copy annexure F) and the demand notices and for a declaration that no sales tax is imposable on any of the transactions right from the stage of procurement of rice from the millers and the licensed dealers by the State Government or its officers up to the stage of delivery of the said procured rice to the depots of the corporation outside the State of Punjab. A further prayer has been made in the nature of the issua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-08-1975
Reported in : AIR1976P& H38
S.S. Sandhawalja, J.1. Theissue of law arising from virtually undisputed facts in this reference mav well be formulated in the following terms:--'Whether Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 bars a suit for mesne profits filed subseauentlv to a suitfor possession of fee property because the claim for those accrued mesne profits had not been earlier included therein ?'It suffices to advert to the relevant facts briefly. The subject-matter of the dispute is the urban property situated at Circular Road. Ambala City. In January, 1966. Pritam Singh respondent alone brought a suit for possession of the above-said property alleging inter alia that the defendants were in wrongful and unauthorised occupation thereof from the 14th of June, 1965. In this suit he did not include anv claim for mesne profits which had accrued till the date of the filing of the same. That suit is still pending decision. Later in 1968 Pritam Singh respondent alone with his sister Smt. Sur-jit Kaur resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-15-1975
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(P& H)261
Ajit Singh Bains, J. - The petitioner-company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and its registered office is at Dhuri. It is doing the business of manufacturing sugar at Dhuri, District Sangrur. The petitioner company purchased sugarcane from producers/growers at purchase centers and also at the mill premises for the purposes of manufacturing sugar. It is alleged in the petition that in the assessment year 1973-74, the petitioner company has purchased sugarcane from producers directly. The petitioner company filed its quarterly returns and also placed statements showing the purchases of sugarcane and sales of sugar. The Assessing Authority vide its assessment order dated 25th March, 1975 (annexure A) held that the petitioner company was liable for purchase tax to the tune of Rs. 6,68,963.76. The petitioner company submitted written argument before the Assessing Authority that it was not liable but its arguments were rejected. It is against the assessment order dated 25th Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-15-1975
Reported in : [1976]38STC39(P& H)
Ajit Singh Bains, J.1. The petitioner-company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and its registered office is at Dhuri. It is doing the business of manufacturing sugar at Dhuri, District Sangrur. The petitioner-company purchased sugarcane from producers/growers at purchase centres and also at the mill premises for the purposes of manufacturing sugar. It is alleged in the petition that in the assessment year 1973-74, the petitioner-company has purchased sugarcane from producers directly. The petitioner-company filed its quarterly returns and also placed statements showing the purchases of sugarcane and sales of sugar. The Assessing Authority vide its assessment order dated 25th March, 1975 (annexure A) held that the petitioner-company was liable for purchase tax to the tune of Rs. 6,68,963.76. The petitioner-company submitted written arguments before the Assessing Authority that it was not liable but its arguments were rejected. It is against the assessment order dated 25th Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-21-1975
Reported in : AIR1976P& H180
Bhupinder Singh Dhillon, J.1. This First Appeal from Order is directed against the unanimous order dated February 23, 1965, passed by the Sikh Gurdware Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), non-suiting the appellant on a finding that the appellant has no locus standi to bring the petition under Section 8 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This appeal was listed for hearing before a Division Bench and the two learned Judges constituting the Bench having taken different views while deciding the appeal, the appeal was referred by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice to R. S. Narula, J. (now Hon'ble Chief Justice), for decision under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Clause 26 of the Letters Patent of this Court. However, the learned Judge felt embarrassed to hear and re-decide the appeal on a difference of opinion between the two Judges as one of the learned Judges of the Division Bench doubted the correctness of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-14-1975
Reported in : AIR1976P& H365
ORDER1. In this set of writ petitions the primary challenge is directed against the Wheat Dealers Licensing and Price Control (Fourth Amendment) Order, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Fourth Amendment Order, and the acquisition of the stocks of wheat held by the petitioners thereunder.2. It suffices to advert to the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 6372 of 1974. Therein it is averred on behalf of thirty-two petitioners that in the year 1973 the Central and the State Governments took up policy decision to take over the wholesale trade in wheat. Consequent thereto the Punjab Wheat Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order of 1973 was promulgated. This, in effect, excluded the wholesale dealers from trading in wheat. How-ever, certain difficulties were encountered in the implementation of the wheat trade take over policy and in March, 1974, again a policy decision to reverse the same was taken and in order to effectuate the same the State of Punjab issued the Punjab Wheat Dealers Lic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-15-1975
Reported in : [1975]101ITR112(P& H)
M.R. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, Shri H. L. Sibal, is an advocate of this court. On October 17, 1974, while he was, working in his office at about 7-30 a.m., respondent No. 3 entered his office and showed him a warrant under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), authorising him to search the premises of the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 was at that time accompanied by respondent No. 4 and some other officials of the income-tax department. He also brought Major D. S. Brar and Shri P. L. Verma, retired Chief Engineer--Panch witnesses--to witness the search.2. The case of the petitioner is that he informed respondent No. 3 that he had to appear in some cases before this court including a part-heard case in which he was to represent the Punjab State and the Punjab State Electricity Board, but he was ordered by respondent No. 3 not to leave his premises. The reason given was that the latter had been ordered by his superior officers in that behalf.3. The son...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-19-1975
Reported in : AIR1977P& H76
R.S. Narula, C.J.1. The circumstances in which these two connected cases (Letters Patent Appeal 350 of 1972 and Civil Writ Petition 242 of 1972) have been filed may first be surveyed. The Annual Import Trade Control Policy is announced by the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Supply in the Government of India for each year for the period April to March. Public notice of the annual policy statement is given by publication in the Gazette of India. Public notice is also issued of any changes made in the policy in any regard from time to time. The period to which the Letters Patent Appeal relates is April, 1966 to March, 1967, On August 4, 1966, the Government of India issued public notice relating to 'liberalisation of policy for import of Iron and Steel and Ferro-alloys, by sc-tual users in the small-scale sector for the period April 1966 to March 1967' (An-nexure 'A' to the writ petition). Actual users in the small-scale sector to whom import licences for Iron and Steel and Ferro-alloys had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-14-1975
Reported in : AIR1975P& H210
Bhopinder Singh Dhillon, J.1. Petitioner Soni Bai owned no land on the date of enforcement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. 1953 (Punjab Act X of 1953) Thereinafter referred to as the Act), Her mother Smt. Parmcshwari Bai died on December 8, 1955 and the petitioner inherited 6 Standard Acres and 8 1/4 Units of land on her death. Smt. Jamni Bai aunt of the petitioner gifted 26 Stand-dard Acres and 1 1/2 Units of land to the petitioner on September 7. 1957. The petitioner thus became owner of 32 Standard Acres and 9 3/4 Units of land. She reserved the area for her self-cultivation and filed her choice in form 'E' as required under Section 5(B) read with Section 19 (B) of the Act, read with the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) on August 28. 1958 within the prescribed period. However, on September 12. 1960. the Kanungo concerned reported that the petitioner was the owner of 32 Standard Acres and 9 1/2 Units of land wherea...
Tag this Judgment!