Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-05-2007
Reported in : (2008)152PLR316
Sham Sunder, J.1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 2.11.2001 rendered by the Court of the then Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide which the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 345 days for filing the appeal, was dismissed.2. The facts in brief, are that vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.1995, the suit filed by Hari Dev-Plaintiff-respondent, for recovery of Rs. 1,36,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, with proportionate costs, was decreed by the court of the then Additional Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda.3. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred, in the Court of District Judge, which was entrusted to the Court of an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda. Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 345 days was filed by the petitioner-appellant, on the ground that he came to know of the passing of the decr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-29-2007
Reported in : AIR2008P& H67
Uma Nath Singh, J.1. The petitioner was nominated during the term of the previous Government as a member of Market Committee, Raikot (Ludhiana) on 16-2-2005 in exercise of powers under Section 12 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and other powers vested in the Governor of Punjab. He also became the Chairman of the said Committee, however, he has ceased to continue in office with issuance of the Punjab Ordinance No. 2 of 2007 by the present Government, which was later translated in to an enactment, being the Punjab Act No. 5 of 2007 substituting Section 12-A of the Act, whereby all the market committees in the State of Punjab have been superseded. The petitioner has, hence, sought to challenge the provisions of the Punjab Act No. 5 of 2007, on the ground that the procedures laid down under Section 35 of the Act have not been followed. Section 12-A of the Act after amendment by Act No. 5 of 2007 reads as follows:12-A. Supersession of nominated Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-05-2007
Reported in : (2008)149PLR523
Permod Kohli, J.1. This is a petition for grant of probate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Act No. 39 of 1925) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by National West Minister Bank named as one of the executors in the will dated 6.12.1993, allegedly executed by Mr. Paul Gill alias Darshan Singh Gill. It is alleged that late Mr. Paul Gill was a Non-resident Indian having his permanent place of residence at 10, Wellington Court Clare Road Standwell Middlesex, England. Mr. Gill is said to have died on 8.2.1995. The will sought to be probated is said to be the last testament of Mr. Paul Gill. It is further stated that the testator has bequeathed his movable and immovable properties in favour of petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4. The deceased had named other beneficiaries also. It is also alleged that the mother of the deceased Paul Gill, pre-deceased him and Mr. Paul Gill has left behind Vikas Singh Gill as the Class I heir and other legal representatives un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-24-2007
Reported in : (2008)149PLR380
Vinod K. Sharma, J.1. Present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District' Judge, Hisar vide which the appeal' filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been ordered to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as the application made for condonation of delay Was ordered to be dismissed.2. The appeal was filed by the appellant with delay of 22 days and the reason given for such delay was that the plaintiff-appellant remained ill from 10.10.1998 to 28.10.1998. However, the said plea was rejected on the ground that limitation for filing the appeal was only upto 6.10.1998. It was further observed that the plaintiff firm had two partners and therefore, signatures of one partner was not a ground for condonation of delay. Learned lower appellate court also came to the conclusion that the limitation cannot be given a complete go by and a party is bound to give an explanation. Learned lower appellate court placed reliance on the judgment of Hon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-23-2007
Reported in : (2007)4PLR273
Vinod K. Sharma, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 2.3.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, accepting the appeal filed by fee respondent against the order dated 8.1.1992 passed by fee Collector, Thanesar, directing fee respondent herein to deposit a stamp duty of Rs. 5,33,120/- (five lac thirty three thousand one hundred twenty) with the Sub-Registrar, Shahabad (M). It was further directed that in case of failure to deposit, the same would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The brief tacts of the case are as under:Vasika No. 959 dated 16.10.1990 favouring Narain Dass s/o Shri Bhagwan Dass, resident of Taraori, Tehsil and Distt. Karnal valued of Rs. 6,91,398/- was registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Shahabad (M), Kurukshetra. The Accountant General, Haryana, in his audit Note for the year 1990-91 has pointed out stamp evasion of Rs. 5,33,120/-. This vasika is concerned with Solvent Industry Shahabad (M). Mr. Na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-14-2007
Reported in : (2008)12VST149(P& H)
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. This matter has been placed for hearing before us in pursuance of order of the honourable Supreme Court dated July 14, 2006 in C. A. No. 3453 of 2002 and connected matters reported in Jindal Stainless Limited v. State of Haryana : (2006)7SCC271 [hereinafter referred to as 'Jindal Stainless Limited (3)'].2. Appeals before the honourable Supreme Court arose from the judgment of this Court dated December 21, 2001, Jindal Strips Limited v. State of Haryana reported in [2003] 129 STC 534 (P&H;).3. When the appeal against judgment of this Court was placed for hearing before a Bench of the honourable Supreme Court, correctness of the view taken by the honourable Supreme Court in earlier judgment in Bhagatram Rajeev Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1995] 96 STC 654 : [1995] Supp 1 SCC 673, which was followed in State of Bihar v. Bihar Chamber of Commerce : [1996]2SCR184 , was doubted and the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench to decide with certitude, the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-31-2007
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR694]; (2008)IILLJ434P& H; (2008)149PLR101
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of 12 writ petitions, which have been directed against the six separate Awards dated 26.4.2005, made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, whereby the termination of six workmen have been held to be illegal and consequently, the orders of re-instatement with continuity of service, but without any back wages, have been passed. Six petitions bearing C.W.P. Nos. 20030, 20062, 20074, 20075, 20340 & 20138 of 2005 have been filed by the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Management Corporation'), aggrieved against the orders of declaring the termination of the workmen as illegal and their re-instatement; and six petitions bearing C.W.P. Nos. 19544 to 19549 of 2006 have been filed by six different workmen, aggrieved against the part of the orders denying them the relief of back wages. The Labour Court consolidated six references referred on the claims made by six different workmen, as in all the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-05-2007
Reported in : (2008)149PLR511
Permod Kohli, J.1. These appeals arising out of various awards passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal i.e. the reference Court deciding various references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), have been placed before me pursuant to remand order dated 16.12.2004 passed by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 441 of 1985.2. Earlier these appeals were decided by a Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 28.11.1984 passed in R.F.A. No. 890 of 1983 and other connected matters. An L.P.A. being L.P.A. No. 44l of 1985 came to be preferred by the claimants/land owners challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge claiming higher rate of compensation than allowed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of this Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.3. The circumstances that persuaded the Hon'ble Division Bench to remand the matter and relevant observations in the order of remand are being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-15-2007
Reported in : (2007)4PLR258
Vinod K. Sharma, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for possession of 101 kanals 9 marlas of land being one third share of 304 kanals 7 marlas situated in village Kauni Tehsil and District Faridkot.2. The plaintiff claimed that they are sons of Bhagwan Kaur alias Bhagni alias Bhagwan who was the daughter of Sobha Singh son of Gurdit Singh, landowner/proprietor of village Kauni. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that in the Jamabandi for the year 1951-52 of village Kauni, Sobha Singh was owner in possession to the extent of half share along with Sawan Singh and Sucha Singh who had other half share in 431 kanals 3 marlas of land. Sobha Singh is stated to have died on 5.11.1953 leaving behind his daughter Bhawan Kaur alias Bhagni alias Bhagan as his sole heir to his estate. Share of Sobha Singh used to be cultivated by Sucha Singh and Sawan Singh on Batai a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-14-2007
Reported in : (2008)149PLR275
Vinod K. Sharma, J.1. The present Regular Second Appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1980 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 24.9.1976 passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for possession by redemption was decreed on payment of Rs. 3,318/- was allowed.2. Bhawani Parshad deceased and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in the suit mortgaged with possession Shop Nos. 984, 985, 987 and stair case No. 986 in lieu of Rs. 10,000/- by a registered-deed with Mool Chand, father of Smt. Misri, defendant No. 14. The mortgage was to be redeemed within 8 years. Mool Chand died and his daughter Smt. Misri sold her mortgagee rights on 16th of December, 1952 in favour of Mohan Lal, defendant No. 15. Defendant Nos. 1 to 13 were sued as either the mortgagors or successors-in interest of mortgagors. Bhawani Parshad, one...
Tag this Judgment!