Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-29-1993
Reported in : (1993)104PLR603
K.P. Bhandari, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 2367 and 2368 of 1991 as they arise out of the common judgment of the Addl. District Judge, Ferozepur, for the purposes of these judgments, facts have been taken from Regular First Appeal No. 2368 of 1991.2. The Punjab Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the 'Act') on August 6, 1973, for acquisition of land measuring 35 acres, 1 kanal and 10 Marlas in village Panchanwali, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur. The acquired land included land measuring 19 Kanals 14 Marlas belonging to the appellant. The provisions of Section 17 of the Act were invoked and enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act who issued on August 6 1973. The State immediately took possession of the land in dispute. Sudhir Kumar and other landowners challenged the notification by means of Civil Writ Petition No. 3465 of 1973 The main challe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-23-1993
Reported in : II(1993)ACC605; 1995ACJ1288; (1993)104PLR523
K.P. Bhandari, J.1. This is an appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fridabad, dated 12.8,1987 whereby claim of the appellant was dismissed.2. In the present case, Haryana Roadways Bus struck against the car of the claimants. Driver of car died on the spot. There were five occupants in the car who received serious injuries. Kama Devi was declared dead on anival at the hospital. On arrival in ihe hospital, Radha Devi was also declared dead. P. L. Dhanuka, claimant, and D. N Bangur, appellant also received serious injuries. They remained confined in the hospital in Delhi and Calcutta. The Tribunal framed the following issues :-'1. Whether the impugned accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HRW 4535 by respondent No. 3? OPP.2. Whether the accident was earned due to rash and negligent driving of Car No. DIA 5296 by deceased Driver Deep Chand OPR.3. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation If so, how mu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-15-1993
Reported in : [1997]88CompCas821(P& H)
G.R. Majithia, J.1. This judgment disposes of Company Appeals Nos. 5 to 13 of 1992.2. Claim petitions under Sections 446, 447 and 453 read with Section 458 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), i.e., C. P. Nos. 36 to 39 of 1984 and 51 to 55 of 1985 were disposed of by the learned company judge by a common judgment dated February 7, 1992. The learned company judge decreed the claim petitions and the judgments have been challenged in these company appeals filed under Section 483 of the Act.Facts first :3. Roopnagar Credit and Investment Pvt. Ltd., Roopnagar, was ordered to be wound up by the judgment of this court rendered in Company Petition No. 235 of 1980, decided on October 19, 1982, and Bachan Motor Financiers Pvt. Ltd. and Bala Financiers Pvt. Ltd. were ordered to he woundup, vide judgment of this court rendered in Company Petition No. 243 of 1960, decided on October 19, 1982. These were sister concerns. Gursharan Singh Bala and Bhupinder Singh Bala had been the managi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-09-1993
Reported in : (1994)106PLR368
H.S. Bedi, J.1. Respondent No. 1, Messra Phool Chand Satya Pal Engineers and Contractors, filed a petition under Sections 20 and 22 of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') before the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhri seeking appointment of an arbitrator as per clause 75 of the agreement for settling the dispute which had arisen between the parties. This petition was allowed on 23rd November, 1990, and one Sh. S. P. Ajmani, Superintending Engineer, Haryana State Electricity Board was appointed as the Arbitrator. The Haryana State Electricity Board aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, under Section 39(1)(iv) of the Act and the same having been filed belatedly, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved. The Additional District Judge, however, vide his order dated 24th July, 1991 held that as no sufficient cause had been made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal, dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-15-1993
Reported in : (1993)105PLR449
G.R. Majithia, J.1. This judgment disposes of Company Appeals Nos. 5 to 13 of 1993.2. Claim petitions under Sections 446, 447 and 453 read with Section 458 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, the Act), i.e. C.P. Nos. 36 to 39 of 1984 and 51 to 55 of 1985, were disposed of the learned Company Judge by a common judgment dated February 7, 1992. The learned Company Judge decreed the claim petitions and the judgments have been challenged in these company appeals filed under Section 483 of the Act.3. Facts first :-Roopnangar Credit and Investment Pvt. Ltd. Roopnagar was ordered to be judgment of this Court rendered in Company Petition No. 235 of 1980, decided on October, 1982 and M/S. Bachan Motor Financers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Bala Financers Pvt. Ltd. were ordered to be wound up vide judgment of this Court rendered in Company Petition No. 243 of 1980, decided on October 19, 1982. These were sister concerns. Gursharan Singh Bala and Bhupinder Singh Bala had been the Managing Directors of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-20-1993
Reported in : AIR1994P& H5; I(1994)DMC469; (1994)106PLR241
ORDERG. R. Majithia, J.1. This first appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) is directed against the judgment and decree of the Matrimonial Court at Amritsar dismissing the petition filed by the appellant-wife for annulling the marriage by a decree of nullity with the respondent husband under Section 12 of the Act.2. The facts as pleaded in the petition under Section 12 of the Act are as follows:--The parties to the lis were married on April 20, 1986 at Amritsar that the appellant wife (hereinafter the wife) stayed at the house of the respondent husband (hereinafter the husband) till April 27, 1986 that during this period, the husband tried to consummate the marriage, but failed that on April 27, 1986, the wife returned to her parents house, that on persuasion by her parents, the wife again came back to the matrimonial house on May 3, 1986 and remained there till June 22, 1986; that during this period also, the husband unsuccessfully tried to consum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-17-1993
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ102P& H
ORDERJawaharlal Gupta, J. 1. Is the Food Corporation of India not entitled to employ a watchman as contract labour? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this petition. A few facts may be noticed.2. The Food Corporation of India Class IV Employees Union is the petitioner. It seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation 'not to employ watchman for its godown as contract labour'. It avers that the workmen in the country had been demanding abolition of contract labour. The employment of contract labour causes discrimination as much as the facilities which are available to the regular workmen are not afforded to the workmen employed through contract. In order to eliminate such discrimination, the Parliament enacted the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, the Government of India issued a Notification dated December 9, 1976 prohibiting employment of contract labour w.e.f. March 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-17-1993
Reported in : AIR1994P& H98; [1996]86CompCas334(P& H); (1994)106PLR211
ORDER1. This judgment disposes of Civil Revision No, 1386 of 1991, Civil Revision No. 4098 of 1991, Civil Revision No. 3871 of 1991 and Civil Revision No. 3548 of 1991. Civil Revision No. 1386 of 1991 came up for motion hearing before V. K. Jhanji, J. on 22-11-1991 and the learned Judge admitted the petition to Division Bench observing thus :--'Punjab National Bank filed a suit for recovery against the petitioners. The said suit was decreed with costs and interest. While awarding interest, it was granted at the contractual rate. In execution an objection was raised by the petitioners that the Court while passing the decree had no jurisdiction to grant more than six per cent future interest as the loan was a crop loan and an agricultural loan cannot be considered as commercial loan taken in connection with some industry, trade or business. Objections were dismissed by the executing Court as it was of the view that the Court cannot go beyond the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-07-1993
Reported in : (1994)116CTR(P& H)145; [1994]207ITR190(P& H)
A.L. Bahri, J.1. Sixteen civil writ petitions filed by the petitioner for different assessment years are being disposed of. The judgment is prepared in C. W. P. No. 11863 of 1989.2. In this petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-State Bank of Patiala, a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of Patiala (Subsidiary Bank and Controls) Act, 1959, seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated June 13, 1989, annexure P-1 passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes declining to interfere in the matter of proceedings initiated under Section 148(1) of the Income-tax Act by issuing a notice, annexure P-2, dated March 25, 1988, and also for quashing of the aforesaid notice and further directing the respondents including the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Patiala, not to reassess the petitioner for the assessment year 1972-73. The petitioner is an assessee since the assessment year 1961-62 u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jun-04-1993
Reported in : [1996]86CompCas267(P& H); (1994)106PLR1
G.R. Majithia, J.1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court affirming on appeal those of the trial judge decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent-bank for recovery of Rs. 93,377.39 with future interest at the rate of 19 per cent. per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation of the decretal amount.Facts first. :Syndicate Bank, Rewari Branch (hereinafter 'the plaintiff-bank'), allowed overdraft loan facility to Sapra Textile Agency, Kewal Bazar, Rewari, a partnership concern. Sarvshri Jagdish Chander, Devender Kumar and Smt. Daya Wanti were the partners of the firm. The loan of Rs. 50,000 was advanced by the plaintiff-bank to them on January 12, 1977, and the partners executed pronote, security bonds, hypothecation agreement and other relevant documents in favour of the plaintiff-bank, Shri Sham Dass, father of Sarvshri Jagdish Chander and Devinder Kumar and husband of Smt. Daya Wanti mortgaged his p...
Tag this Judgment!