Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-23-2000
Reported in : AIR2000P& H226; (2000)125PLR649
ORDERIqbal Singh, J.1. Krishan Singh Rana (petitioner) brought a suit for permanent injunction asserting that he is a tenant of the premises in question under Veena Devi. The premises consist of three rooms, bathroom, latrine and Kitchen on the first floor of S.C.F, Nos. 21-22, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh. It was further stated that some dispute had arisen between the landlady Smt. Veena Devi and the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the defendant-Corporation) as a result of which the defendant-Corporation was trying to dispossess the petitioner from the demised premises in spite of the fact that his tenancy rights are protected under the statute and cannot be interfered with by thedefendant-Corporation. In the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seeking an ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit.2. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-27-2000
Reported in : [2006]143STC670(P& H)
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, J.1. This is a petition for quashing of the order (annexure P6) dated August 10, 1999 and annexure P7 dated May 25, 2000 passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala (respondent No. 3), and Sales Tax Tribunal-II, Haryana (for short, 'the Tribunal'), respectively, declining the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of exemption from payment of tax, which constitutes a condition precedent to the entertaining of an appeal filed under Section 39(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, 'the 1973 Act').2. The petitioner is registered as a dealer under the 1973 Act. It filed four quarterly returns for the assessment year 1994-95. The Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Yamuna Nagar, (respondent No. 4) did not accept the return and issued notice in form ST-25 under Section 28 of the 1973 Act for finalisation of the assessment. Shri Rakesh Mehta, Advocate, and Shri Harpal Singh, Office Superintendent, appeared on be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-26-2000
Reported in : [2001]123STC34(P& H)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Whether delay in the filing of appeal under Section 39(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, 'the 1973 Act') against the order of assessment can be condoned by applying the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, is the only question which arises for determination by the court in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. A perusal of the record shows that the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 39(1) of the 1973 Act against the order dated March 27, 1998 passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Rewari (respondent No. 2) holding the petitioner liable to pay tax amounting to Rs. 85,571 was entertained by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad Circle, Faridabad (respondent No. 3) on November 5, 1998 subject to the condition of furnishing surety bond but, later on, by an order dated November 30, 1998, the said respondent dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-03-2000
Reported in : [2001]122STC415(P& H)
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders, annexures P4, P7 and P11 passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority, Fatehabad (hereinafter described as 'the Assessing Authority'), the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Hissar (hereinafter described as 'the appellate authority') and the Sales Tax Tribunal III, Haryana (for short, 'the Tribunal'), respectively.2. For the purpose of deciding the issue raised by the petitioner, it is sufficient to mention that the petitioner had challenged the order of the Assessing Authority by filing an appeal under Section 39(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act') along with an application under proviso to Section 39(5) for exemption from payment of tax, interest and penalty amounting to Rs. 80,916. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Hissar, rejected the application of the petitioner but the second appeal filed by it was allowed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-11-2000
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2585
ORDER1. The petitioner, Hardev Singh, was posted as Head Constable in 67 Battalion, Border Security Force (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BSF') at Baghapurana in October, 1991. In the night intervening 24/25th October, 1991, the petitioner was posted as Guard Commander. According to the charge-sheet (copy Annexure P1) dated 11-4-1992, the petitioner allegedly committed the murder of Constable Ratna Bhai of his unit by firing a shot from his Carbine Butt No. 54, body Registration No. JJ 0324. The petitioner was tried by the General Security Force Court (hereinafter to be referred as 'GSFC'), which was convened by the Additional Director General, BSF, Punjab Frontier, vide order dated 5th May, 1992, passed on the charge-sheet dated 14th May, 1992. The charge-sheet was served on the petitioner for committing civil offence under Section 46 of the BSF Act, i.e. the offence of murder, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased Constable Ratna Bhai was allotted Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-21-2000
Reported in : (2000)126PLR781
M.L. Singhal, J.1. Vide order dated 22.7.88 Sub Judge 1st Class, Tarn Taran ordered the award delivered by the Arbitrator dated 30.8.1985 to be made rule of the Court while dismissing the objections of Harbans Singh etc. in default filed to the award being made rule of the Court. As a sequel to this order dated 22.7.88, the same day itself, it was ordered that award Ex.CA of Pal Singh Arbitrator dated 30.8.85 is made rule of the Court. It was Misc. No. 34 of 1985 titled Sarbjit Singh and Ors. v. Harbans Singh and Ors. on the file of Sub Judge 1st Class, Tarn Taran in which the said orders were passed.2. Not satisfied with the decree dated 22.7.99 of Sub Judge 1st Class, Tarn Taran. Harbans Singh etc. went in appeal. Appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 6.9.90.3. Still not satisfied, Harbans Singh etc. have come up in revision to this Court.4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.5. Facts.There is an ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-04-2000
Reported in : (2001)IILLJ339P& H
S.S. Sudhalkar, J. 1. Written statement by respondent No. 2 filed. Copy given to the counsel for the petitioner. Written statement taken on record.2. This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 10.11.1998 (copy annexure P/5) vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity and with 50% back wages. Case of respondent No. 2 is that she was appointed as Social Worker/Counsellor vide appointment letter dated 18.7.1992 of the Secretary of the Red Cross Counselling Cenlre for Drug Addicts, Hisar hereinafter referred to as the 'Management'. The project was run by the Ministry of Welfare, Government of India on the basis of yearly grant. The appointment letter is produced in this case at annexure P/1. The terms of appointment are as under:'You are hereby offered the post of Social Worker/Counsellor in the Red Cross Counselling Centre for drug addicts, Hisar. You will be paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-10-2000
Reported in : AIR2001P& H139
R.C. Kathuria, J.1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8492 of 2000 Dr. (Mrs.) Kumud Dharwal v. State of Punjab and others and 8582 of 2,000 Dr. Satinder Pal Singh and others y. State of Punjab and others, in which common questions of law and facts have arisen.2. Dr. (Mrs.) Kumud Dharwal, petitioner in Civii Writ Petition No. 8492 of 2000, had appeared in the entrance test conducted by Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') in terms of the Notification bearing No. 5/19/99/1H-83/1537 dated 18.5.1999 for admission to Post-graduate M.D./M.S. Courses commencing from academic session 1999. As per directions contained in the Notification, admission process was to be completed upto 30.9.1999. The petitioner was successful and was called for interview. She was offered M.D./M.S. course in various specialities. Since she was teaching Anatomy in Guru Ram Dass Medical College, Amritsar, she was keen to seek admission in the Course of M.S....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-04-2000
Reported in : [2001]124STC4(P& H)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This is a petition for quashing of the notice, annexure P1, issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal (respondent No. 2) to the petitioner to show cause as to why the paddy purchased by it may not be subjected to tax under Section 28-B of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, 'the 1973 Act') and why interest and penalty may not be levied upon it under Section 25(5) and Section 47 respectively.2. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner is engaged in the business of rice shelling. It is registered as a dealer under the 1973 Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the 1956 Act'). For the year 1997-98, the petitioner filed returns showing the purchase of paddy and sale of rice exported out of India on 'H' form basis and claimed exemption under Section 5(3) read with Section 15(ca) of the 1956 Act. Respondent No. 2 did not accept the return and issued the impugned notice for levy of tax, inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-24-2000
Reported in : AIR2000P& H224; (2000)126PLR25
ORDERV.M. Jain, J. 1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 11-3-1998 passed by the District Judge, holding that the Court was competent to hear and decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. in spite of the fact that the trial of the suit had been stayed by the Court vide order dated 14-6-1997. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are that M/s Sham Sunder (Haryana) Industries Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiffs) had filed a suit for permanent injunction against M/s. Century Proteins Ltd. (defendant) seeking to restrain and forbid the defendant from infringement of trade name, copy rights and passing of the trade mark of 'Gopal Vanaspati' of the plaintiff company and further to restrain the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing and passing off the products of Vanaspati oil under the trade mark of exclusive right to use the trade mark 'GopalVanaspati.' The said suit was contested by the...
Tag this Judgment!