Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: pharmacy act 1948 section 15b registration in the central register Court: punjab and haryana Page 1 of about 13 results (0.104 seconds)

Om Parkash Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1990)98PLR289

..... sadhu ram krishan kumar, it transpires that there is no documentary evidence on the file that the above referred firm was carrying on its business in the premises in dispute, although such like evidence in the shape of partnership deed, the accounts of the firm and the registration certificate issued under the central sales tax act, could have been easily available if actually this firm was carrying on business therein. ..... 's case (supra) while upholding the constitutional vires of section 8-a of the act as well as the rules framed thereunder, had highlighted that resumption of the site or building under section 8-a of the act, should be used as last resort in order to ensure the achievement of the object of the act by observing as under :--'adverting specifically to section 8-a the restrictions for the exercise of the powers vested thereby exist not only in the express provision thereof, but are equally discernable from the larger purpose of the act, its preamble as also the other sections thereof when read with the statutory rules framed thereunder. .....

Kashmiri Lal Vs. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... 16416 of 2003 against the state of punjab including both the private respondents seeking the following relief:(a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to comply with the provisions of section 50-a and 50- b read with section 52 of the punjab municipal act, 1911. ..... this revision petition is directed against order dated 25.9.2008 passed by sub divisional officer (civil), exercising the powers of collector under the punjab public premises act, 1973, amloh under the public premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) act, 1971, whereby, the proceedings before it have been adjourned sine die to await the decision of the civil suit alleged to have been filed by both petitioner as well as respondents no. ..... (b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure the removal of unauthorized occupation from the government land - passage and further for directing the respondents not to accept tehbazari from the private respondent for any further period as it leads to blocking of the passage to the house of the petitioner.4. ..... on the other hand, learned counsel for private respondents has vehemently argued that the present application filed under the punjab public premises act, 1973 is not maintainable after the dismissal of the writ petition in which the same prayer was made because the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. ..... however, the defendant shall be at liberty to take possession in due course of law, it be registered.3. .....

Gilton Industries and ors. Vs. Chandigarh Administration and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2003)133PLR116

..... and that so far as the present case is concerned, the appellate authority concededly did not intimate the date of hearing to the petitioners or the counsel representing the petitioners when it disposed of the application for restoration of the appeal on 26.2.1999, nor was any such intimation given to the petitioners or their counsel while disposing of the appeal on merits.4. ..... for the said reason, the orders passed under the public premises act whereby the petitioners and their tenant, the state bank of india were evicted from the premises are also set aside.6. ..... in this behalf, it is pointed out that during the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of cancellation passed by the estate officer, the appellate authority vide order dated 1.9.1998 dismissed the appeal in default. ..... it would be necessary for the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal expeditiously in view of the fact that the petitioners as well as their tenant, the state bank of india have been evicted from the property. ..... since the appellate order as well as the revisional order have been set aside, it is obvious that the proceedings would not have been initiated under the public premises act. ..... it is only after finalisation of the cancellation order that proceedings under the public premises act can be initiated against a party. ..... the petitioners also impugn the consequential orders passed under the public premises act. .....

Jaipal Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)140PLR109

..... in the year 2002, the gram panchayat filed the fresh application for eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute under the public premises act and on the said application, the collector, after following the procedure prescribed under the said act and after giving due opportunity of hearing and leading evidence to the petitioner, the order of ejectment has been passed on the basis of the demarcation report ..... the gram panchayat filed the application under the public premises act whereas the collector has decided the same under the provisions of punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'village common lands act ..... application filed by the respondent-gram panchayat under sections 2 and 7 of the haryana public premises and land (eviction and rent recovery) act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the public premises act'). ..... our opinion, the pendency of the afore-said writ petition will not preclude the gram panchayat to get the ejectment of the petitioner under the public premises act on the fresh application.7 ..... the order passed by the collector was set aside by the commissioner but it was made clear that it would be open for the gram panchayat to proceed against the petitioner after following the prescribed procedure either under the public premises act or village common lands act ..... on 26.9.1996 an application was filed by the respondent-gram panchayat under the provisions of the public premises act for evicting the petitioner from khasra no. .....

Shri H.K.L. Vijan, Manager, Tarun Model School Vs. Chandigarh Administ ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1997)115PLR111

..... it was this notice that was quashed and the learned judges of the apex court observed that upon forfeiture of the lease, the premises could not be regarded as public premises belonging to the central government under the public premises act. ..... in the present case the site was allotted under section 3 of the 1952 act and it was in the exercise of statutory power under section 8-a of that act the same was resumed on a breach of a condition of allotment. ..... 'the estate officer exercising his powers under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the public premises act was satisfied that respondent 4 and the petitioner were in unauthorised occupation because of the resumption of the premises in dispute. ..... meanwhile the estate officer issued notice to the petitioner and also to respondent 4 under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the public premises act calling upon them to show cause why they should not be evicted from the premises in dispute as according to him they were in unauthorised occupation thereof. ..... for this contravention, the estate officer in exercise of its powers under section 8-a of the 1952 act served a notice in writing calling upon the transferee and the petitioner who is his tenant to show cause why any order of resumption of the site be not made and an amount not exceeding 10% of the total amount of consideration money forfeited. .....

Manjit Singh and anr. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2003)134PLR802

..... on 3rd november, 1997, the state of haryana through sub divisional officer, anta water services sub division, safidon, district jind, filed an application under section 5 of the act before the collector, sub division, safidon, for eviction of the petitioners from the land measuring 76 kanals 75 marlas situated in village anta, tehsil safidon, district jind, by alleging therein that the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of the land in question owned by the slate of haryana, which, according to the provisions of the act, constitute a public premises. ..... so, if the appellants were in possession of the property before it was sold to the government, it could not be said that they entered into possession of public premises before or after the commencement of the act and clause (a) of section 3 of the act cannot obviously apply and the appellants were not in unauthorised occupation of public premises with the meaning of clause (a) of section 3. ..... in these petitions, the petitioners have impugned the orders passed by the collector as well as the commissioner passed under section 5 of the haryana public premises land (eviction and rent recovery) act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), vide which the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the land in question. .....

Charan Singh Vs. Municipal Committee, Rania and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1996P& H207; (1996)113PLR707

..... against the municipal committee propounding a title adverse to the committee and when they pleaded that the ownership of the land vested in the custodian, it tanta-mounts to the determination of the lease, which was for a limited period at the first instance, admittedly the lease was for one year, which was expired on 15-4-1978 and it stood determined by the efflux of the time making the possession of the appellants unauthorised after 15-4-1978, giving a locus standi to the respondent-municipal committee to file the petition under section 5 read with section 7 of the 1972 act.11. ..... on the basis of these mutations it was pleaded by the appellants in the writ petitions that the findings recorded by the authorities under the 1972 act could not be sustained, also it was pleaded that the appellants were in cultivating possession of the land as tenants gair maurusi on payment of annual rent at the rate of rs, 80/- per acre under the central government and it cannot be said that their possession is unlawful. ..... it was the prime argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the central government was the paramount holder of this land and the appellant had been paying the chakota to the central government and thereafter to the notified area committee considering them to be the owners of the property. .....

Present: Ms. Charu Sharma Advocate for Shri Raman Sharma, Vs. M/S. Tat ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... . the analyst found that the sample was deficient in respect of nitrogen and amonical nitrogen and therefore, a case was registered as fir no.135 dated 8.11.1984, police station, kotwali faridkot under section 7 of the act and after trial, special court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under section 7 of the act ..... complaints and summoning orders have been quashed by this court holding that the petitioners therein were neither manufacturers nor employees of the manufacturers of the fertilizers nor were they associated in any manner with the manufacture of the fertilizers.and, therefore, could not be proceeded against under section 7 of the act for alleged contravention of regulation 19(1)(a) of the fertilizer order, and the petitioners.as such, cannot be kumar sudhir s201403.03 15:08 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm m-42904 of 2013(o&m) 8 crm ..... standard; manufacture/import for sale, sell, offer for sale, stock or exhibit for sale, or distribute any mixture of fertl11sers.which is not of prescribed standard** (subject to such limits of permissible variation as may be specified from time to time by the central government) or special mixture of fertilisers which does not conform to the particulars specified in the certificate of manufacture granted to him under this order in respect of such special mixture ..... . bhajan lal, rupan deol bajaj v.kanwar pal singh gill, central bureau of investigation v .....

K.B. Sharma and anr. Vs. Vikram Loomba, District Attorney

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2003)133PLR830

..... furthermore, considering that the rent controller had no jurisdiction to order ejectment of the tenants from a portion of the demised premises (considering that it was a single tenancy), in my opinion, no restriction could be imposed on the revisional powers of this court under section 18-a(8) of the act, to interfere in the order passed by the rent controller, if the order of the rent controller is contrary to the law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court, in s ..... view of my detailed discussion above, in my opinion, the ejectment petition, filed by the respondent-landlord, under section 13-a of the act, seeking ejectment of the petitioner-tenants from the residential portion of the demised premises, would not be maintainable and the order of ejectment, passed by the rent controller, ordering ejectment of he petitioner-tenants from the residential portion on the first floor, is liable to be set aside.20. ..... 438 (supra), it was held by the hon'ble supreme court, as under:-'the contract of tenancy is a single and indivisible contract, and in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect, it is not open to the court to divide it into two contracts-one of letting for residential purposes and the other for non-residential purposes and to grant relief to the landlord under section 13(1)(e) of the act, limited to the portion of the demised property which is being used for residential purposes ..... kumari w/o amar chand, in the year 1967, vide registered sale-deed dated 28.4.1967. .....

Chander Bhushan Anand and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Financ ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)139PLR400

..... conferred upon the central government by section 3 of the rent act to direct that 'all or any of the provisos of this act' shall not apply to 'any particular building or rented land' or any 'class of buildings or rented lands', cannot be exercised in such a manner that it shall amount to repealing the rent act itself, namely, this power cannot be resorted to withdraw completely the provisions of the rent act thereby denying: the protection against the increase of rents and/or against mala fide attempts by the landlord to procure the eviction of the tenants, which is the categorically discernible ..... in vasanlal manganbhai sajanwala's case (supra), vires of section 6(2) of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948 and the validity of a notification issued by the government on october 17, 192 under the afore-mentioned provision, came to be challenged. ..... . even in vasanlal maganbhai sajanwala's case (supra), the impugned notification was issued by the state government in exercise of its delegated power under section 6(2) of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948 .....