Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-03-2002
Reported in : (2003)133PLR99
Jasbir Singh, J.1. Notice of motion.2. Mr. H.R. Bansal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3.3. With the consent of the counsel for both the parties, the case is taken up for hearing today.4. Counsel for the parties heard.5. Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with a prayer that memo dated 11.5.1990, vide which less balance has been shown in his Savings Account, be declared null and void. He further prayed that he is entitled to withdraw amount to the extent of Rs. 14,535.20, as has been shown in his Pass Book. His suit was dismissed. He filed an appeal, which was barred by limitation. An application was moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, with a prayer that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. That application was dismissed by the appellate Court below and consequently, vide separate order, his appeal was also dismissed.6. Initially, petitioner filed regular second appeal in this Court, which was numbered as RSA No. 155 of 2001 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-27-2002
Reported in : (2003)133PLR211
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code') challenges order dated 6.10.2000 passed by the District Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissing an application of the defendant-petitioner in which prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity, 'the Act') was made. As a consequence to the dismissal of the application, the appeal itself has been dismissed as time barred.2. In order to put the controversy in its proper perspective, it would be apposite tc make a reference to few facts. Plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No. 285 of 1996 on 24.10.1996 seeking a declaration to the effect that order dated 6.12.1995 passed by the defendant-petitioner dismissing him from service is ultra vires, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. A further relief of mandatory injunction was also prayed that the defendant-petitioner be directed to pay hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-06-2002
Reported in : (2003)133PLR368
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of 587 days delay in filing the revision petition. The principal ground taken in the application is that the impugned order dated 10th February, 1999 was passed exparte at the back of the judgment-debtor-petitioner (for brevity, 'JD-petitioner') and the time was extended by giving two months more to the decree-holder-respondents (for brevity, ' DH-respondents') to deposit the sale consideration.2. Few facts which are necessary 19 decide the controversy raised in the present petition are that the suit for specific performance of the contract filed by the DH-respondents, was decreed, by the Civil Judge in their favour on 12th November, 1998, directing them to deposit the sale consideration within a period of three months in the Court so that the sale deed be executed in their favour. However, the DH-respondents were not able to comply with the terms of the decree by depositing th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-24-2002
Reported in : [2003]117CompCas660(P& H)
J.S. Khehar, J.1. The respondents (herein) on the basis of a dispute, which had arisen between them and the appellants, filed Company Petition No. 76 of 1999 before the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi, under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 praying for relief on account of alleged oppression/mismanagement at the hands of the appellants. During the course of the proceedings before the Company Law Board, the appellants, on 24.08.1999, sought permission of the Company Law Board to move an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Arbitration Act 1996') for reference (of the controversy raised by the respondents in Company Petition No. 76 of 1999) to arbitration. On the aforesaid request, the Company Law Board granted the appellant time up to 04.09.1999 to move an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. No such application was, however, filed within the allotted time. After all effor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-02-2002
Reported in : (2003)134PLR280
N.K. Sud, J.1. The petitioners, who run buses under the stage carriage Permits granted to them, have filed this petition praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari declaring Sections 3F, 4A, 5A, 7A, 7B and 7C of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1924 (for short the Motor Vehicles Act), as incorporated by the Punjab Act No. 22 of 1993, imposing special Road Tax as ultra-vires the Constitution of India. They also seek a direction to the respondents to refund the special Road Tax already charged from the petitioners and a further direction not to charge the same in future also.2. Before adverting to the controversy raised in this petition, it is necessary to notice the background under which the impugned amendment had been brought about in the Motor Vehicles Act.3. Prior to the aforesaid amendment the tourist bus operators were paying taxes on motor vehicles under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 empowers the State Government to le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-29-2002
Reported in : (2003)134PLR90
R.L. Anand, J.1. Unsuccessful plaintiff Kata Singh has filed the present regular second appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.10.1979 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa who allowed the appeal of the defendants by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.4.1977 passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Dabwali who decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants for possession of the land measuring 9 kanals as detailed in the heading of the plaint.2. The brief facts of the case are that Kata Singh appellant filed a suit for possession of the agricultural land measuring 9 kanals comprised in Killa No. 155, Khasra No.24 (7-11), 25(1-9), Khewat No.454, Khatoni No.663 as per jamabandi for the year 1969-70 on the basis of the title or in the alternative the land measuring 9 kanals comprised in Killa No.155/15(6-13) and 17(2-7), situated in Dabwali, District Sirsa. There was some litigation regarding possession of the land between the parties and earlier a d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-05-2002
Reported in : I(2003)ACC53; 2003ACJ1482; (2003)133PLR23
M.M. Kumar, J.1. By this order, we are disposing of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 33 to 36 of 1987, Letters Patent Appeal Nos.837 and 838 of 1986 alongwith Cross Objection No. 3 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 837 of 1986, Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 10 to 13 of 1987 with Cross Objection No. 9 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 10 of 1987 which are directed against judgment dated 25.8.1986 of the learned Single Judge vide which he enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal had awarded total compensation amounting to Rs. 1,93,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The Learned Single Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,00,000/- but maintained the rate of interest specified in the award of the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the appeals and cross-objections can be divided into the following three groups;(a) LPAs No. 837 and 838 of 1986 have been filed by M/s Sachdeva Rice Mills and its partn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-20-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3426
ORDERR.C. Kathuria, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 18-10-2001 (Annexure P5) passed by Shri R.C. Godara, Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the application dated 3-9-2001 (Annexure-P4) filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the prosecution to hold identification parade for identifying the petitioner by the three eyewitnesses in the case titled State v. Raju Gurung bearing FIR No. 73 dated 13-4-2001 registered under Sections 308 and 506, I.P.C. with Police Station, Sector 19, Chandigarh but at the time of submission of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') offence under Section 304, I.P.C. was added.2. For the purpose of adjudication of the present petition, a few facts need to be noticed. The present case was registered on the statement of Sitla Parshad resident of village Ramapur, Police Station Amethi, District Amethi (U.P.), who on the date of occurrence was residing in Koth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-15-2002
Reported in : [2002]255ITR161(P& H)
N.K. Sud, J.1. By this order we are disposing of Gift-tax Reference No. 1 of 1987 and Gift-tax Case No. 2 of 1987 as they relate to a common order dated July 3, 1986, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi. The assessee is an individual. He has three sons, namely, Jitender Kumar, Devendra Prasad and Satendra Kumar. The assessee had purchased certain lands at Hisar from one Anand Dev under the registered sale deed dated March 28, 1954. The lands so purchased included land bearing khasra Nos. 4960 and 4962 to 4969 measuring 77 bighas, 8 biswas. Out of the total land, an area measuring 9 bighas, 11 biswas, in khasra No. 4960 and 4962 was acquired by the Municipal Committee, Hisar. The assessee was, therefore, left with 72 bighas, 17 biswas of land in khasra No. 4963 and 4969. With reference to the said area of 72 bighas, 17 biswas, the assessee's three sons filed a declaratory suit No. 181 of 1970 in the court of Senior Sub-Judge...
Tag this Judgment!