1
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-11-2015
Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Municipal Committee, Naraingarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') consists of 13 elected members and two nominated members, i.e., Member Parliament from Ambala and Member Legislative Assembly, Naraingarh, who were nominated as such under Section 9(3) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Appellant Sanjeev Kumar Verma was elected President of the Committee in the meeting held on 21.6.2010. His name was notified in the official gazette of the State of Haryana. In a meeting of the members of the Committee held on 3.8.2012, a no confidence motion was passed against the appellant under Section 21 of the Act read with Rule 72-A of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') for his removal as President. Out of 15 members to whom the notices were given, i.e., 13 elected and 2 nominated, as stated above, only 9 elected members came present in the meeting and unanimously passed the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-26-2015
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of six appeals viz. ITA Nos. 142, 143 of 2013, 156, 157, 159 and 160 of 2014 as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue involved in all the appeals is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 142 of 2013. 2. ITA No. 142 of 2013 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 16.10.2012, Annexure A.3 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 731/CHD/2012 for the assessment year 2009-10. This appeal was admitted on 22.1.2014 by this Court to consider following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in treating chargeability of payments made to doctors who are regular employees of the hospital as per the provisions of Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-17-2015
1. Bahal Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption against Mokham Singh, husband of respondent No. 5, on 20.04.1965 in respect of the land measuring 63 Kanal 01 Marla, situated in the revenue estate of village Jhandakalan. A compromise was effected between the parties on 28.05.1965 by which Mokham Singh surrendered possession of land measuring 23 Kanal 10 Marlas, comprised in Killa Nos. 160/1 (1-18), 2 (7-19) and 3 (7-11) in favour of Bahal Singh in lieu of Rs.5,000/- and statement of both the parties to that effect was recorded by the Civil Court. The learned Civil Judge, Mansa decreed the suit of Bahal Singh in terms of the compromise to the extent of 23 Kanal 10 Marlas on 21.06.1965. The petitioners filed an application to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Sardulgarh on 21.12.2004 for sanctioning of mutation on the basis of decree dated 21.06.1965. The Halqa Patwari recorded the entry of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-24-2015
Impugned in the present revision is the order dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna, whereby an application filed under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 7.2.1996 was dismissed being timed barred. Also impugned is the order dated 31.10.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal against the said order was also dismissed. Undisputedly, a suit for possession by way of specific performance of land measuring 9 kanals 9 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Rattanheri, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, was filed against the present revisionist in the Court of the then Additional Senior Sub Judge, Khanna. It was averred in the said suit that defendant (revisionist herein) had agreed to sell the said land to the plaintiff (respondent her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-09-2015
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. This intra Court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed against the judgment dated 23.02.2012 of the learned Single Judge, whereby, CWP No.8210 of 2011 filed by the respondent seeking quashing of order dated 01.02.2011 (Annexure P-17) declining the petitioner's request to exercise the second pension option and thereby denying him pensionary benefits, has been allowed. The respondent was appointed as Security Officer in the appellant-Bank on 01.01.1985. Thereafter, he worked at various places and offices of the appellant Bank. On 01.07.2009 (Annexure P-2), he submitted a request for resignation from Bank service stating that in the past one year his service in the Bank had not been worthwhile. He had stated that due to his continuous ill health he had been allowed leave by the Bank, but had not been paid four months salary despite his repeated requests. He stated that though he had intended to work in the Bank after his recovery, but the Bank...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-12-2015
The issues which appear to give rise to two substantial questions of law involved for determination in this defendants' second appeal are: [1] As to whether the construction of the revenue entry in the Jamabandi of the year 1877 makes it a gift or an entrustment or a grant by way of a dohli for private religious purposes in lieu of spiritual services rendered to original owner. If it is of the first kind then no restrictions can be imposed by donor on the property and donee (appellant) is free to alienate, lease, rent or deal with the property according to his own choice. If the case falls in the second/third parts then the dohli in favour of the defendant appears to be inalienable in view of restriction placed by owner against sale or mortgage. If it is inalienable then dohlis could not have further leased out disputed property to the third party defendant/appellants in the year 1986. What is the position in law and on facts? [2] The other substantial question arising is whether the 9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-24-2015
Rajiv Narain Raina, J. 1. This order will dispose of the following 7 writ petitions as common questions are involved in all of them which can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. The relevant facts are taken from CWP No.27578 of 2013. S.No.Case No.Particulars1CWP No.27578 of 2013HMM Coaches Limited now M/s HMM Infra Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another2CWP No.27580 of 2013HMM Coaches Limited now M/s HMM Infra Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another3CWP No.27763 of 2013HMM Coaches Limited now M/s HMM Infra Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another4CWP No.27765 of 2013HMM Coaches Limited now M/s HMMInfra Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another5CWP No.28250 of 2013HMM Coaches Limited now M/s HMM Infra Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another6CWP No.28228 of 2013HMM Coaches Limited now M/s HMMInfra Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another7CWP No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-17-2015
Rekha Mittal, J. 1.The present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing order dated 19.12.2014 passed by the Collector, Sonipat exercising powers of Land Acquisition Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act"- for short) (Respondent No. 2). Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to re-determine compensation under Section 28-A of the Act and award compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/- per square yard for land of the petitioners. 2. Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners were owners of agricultural land situated in the revenue estate of village Gannaur, District Sonipat, Haryana. The total land of the petitioners measuring 129.11 acres was acquired for a company namely Bharat Steel Tubes Limited. The award was passed on 30.4.1963. Some of the land owners filed reference under Section 18 of the Act which was decided on 25.4.1970 vide annexure P-3. The claimants preferred Regular First ...
Tag this Judgment!