Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1950]18ITR688(P& H)
WESTON, C.J. - This matter has been directed to come before a Bench of five Judges. The referring Bench has not formulated the points for our decisions, and some statement of history is necessary I omit dates which are not of importance.It appears that a Sub-Inspector of Police, Jullundur, was conducting the investigation of the case under Sections 7 and 10 of the essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, and also under Sections 420 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code against two persons. In the course of his investigation the Sub-Inspector made a written request to the Income-tax Officer, Jullundur, asking him to hand over certain Income-tax returns and statements relating thereto made by the two persons. There is no dispute that this request must be referred to Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Income-tax Officer declined to hand over the papers, stating that under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act he was precluded from so doing. The Sub-Inspector then made a writt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1950CriLJ1273
Weston, C.J.1. This matter has been directed to come before a Bench of five Judges. The referring Bench has not formulated the points for our decision, and some statement of history is necessary. I omit dates which are not of importance.2. It appears that a Sub-Inspector of Police, Hullender, was conducting the investigation of a case Under Sections 7 and 10, Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act, 1940, and also Under Sections 420 and 182, Penal Code, against two persona. In the course of his investigation, the Sub-Inspector made a written request to the Income-tax Officer, Jullundur, asking him to hand over certain income-tax returns and statements relating thereto made by the two persons, There is no dispute that this request must be referred to Section 94, Criminal P.C. The Income-tax Officer declined to hand over the papers, stating that Under Section 51, Income-tax Act, he was precluded from so doing. The Sub-Inspector then made a written application Under Section 96 of the Code...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1957P& H100
ORDERBishan Narain, J.1. Brij Lal, a nominated member of the Municipal Committee, Jaitu Tahsil Faridkot, District Bhatinda (Pepsu) filed this petition under Article. 226 or the Constitution against the Pepsu State and against the Minister-in-charge Local Self-Government of that State for an order restraining them from superseding the said Municipal Committee. This petition was originally filed in the Pepsu High Court but as that Court was abolished by the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the petition has been placed before this Court for decision. The Municipal Committee was superseded and a notification was issued to that effect on the 14th August, 1956, which is also the date of this petition. In view of the altered circumstances I allowed the petitioner's counsel to argue on the basis as if the relief sought by his client was that the Municipal Committee was not superseded in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged only two points in support of his case. Fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1958P& H326
A.N. Grover, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the house which was got attached by the decree-holder was exempt from attachment. There is no dispute that the house in question is the residential house of the judgment-debtor, it, however, stands mortgaged with another creditor by the name of Girja Mal, and the question is whether in view of the provisions of section 34 (ccc) of the Patiala Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1999 Bk., exemption can be claimed by the judgment-debtor. The aforesaid provision amended Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure and In Sub-section (1), the following was to be inserted:* * *(ccc) one main residential house and other buildings attached to it (with the material and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to a judgment-debtor other than an agriculturist and occupied by him; provided that the protection afforded by this sub-section shall not extend to property which has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1960P& H76
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited (to be hereinafter referred to as the Birla Mills) and the respondents to the petition are the Additional Industrial Tribunal of Delhi, the Delhi State, and the Workers of the Birla Mills, respectively Nos. 1 to 3. The petition has arisen out of the award, dated 25-6-1955, of Additional Industrial Tribunal of Delhi on a dispute arising between the petitioner and its workers.(2) An industrial dispute having arisen between the petitioner and respondent No. 3, it came before the Conciliation Officer, and in consequence of his report the Chief Commissioner of Delhi proceeded to make reference of the dispute under Ss. 12(5) and 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No. XIV of 1947), by a notification of 27-10-1953. The notification states that the Chief Commissioner was satisfied on the report of the Conciliation Officer than industrial dispute between the parties existed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1960P& H29
A.N. Bhandari, C.J. (1) This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent raises the question whether a right of appeal which has been destroyed under the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Judicature Ordinance, 2005 Bk., has been revived by S. 63 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.(2) On 10-9-1956 the Chief Justice of the Pepsu High Court passed an order under Art. 226 of the Constitution quashing certain orders passed by the Financial Commissioner of Patiala. On the same day the appellant who was dissatisfied with the order of the Chief Justice presented an application under S. 52 of the Pepsu Judicature Ordinance 2005 Bk., for a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to a Division Bench of the said Court and on the same day the learned Chief Justice dismissed this application. The State of Pepsu was integrated with the State of the Punjab on 1-11-1956 and the appellants preferred an appeal to this Court under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1959P& H440
S.S. Dulat, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the validity of certain proceedings-started against the petitioners under the Patiala Recovery of State Dues Act (No. IV of 2002 Bk.). The proceedings are for the recovery of a large sum of money mentioned as Rs. 4,98,589/1/6 due from the petitioners to the Patiala State Bank. Similar proceedings for the recovery of a much smaller sum of money said to be Rs. 25,691/- have also been separately started against the petitioners, and' another similar writ petition (Civil Writ 389 of 1958) has been filed to challenge those proceedings. The grounds in support of both the petitions are identical and it is convenient to deal with them together.2. The petitioners are a joint Hindu family firm styled Messrs. Tilakram Rambaksh of Lehragaga. They admittedly had dealings with the Patiala State Bank and there was a transaction of a loan between the parties on 23-5-1953 out of which the present claim has arisen.3. The Pati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1962P& H190; [1962]32CompCas659(P& H)
ORDER(1) These are two petitions, C. O. 16 and 28 of 1960, which may be disposed of together.(2) The Pure Milk Supply Company Private Limited is a joint stock company which was incorporated on 28th October, 1942, with its registered office at Lahore. An application was made under S. 43 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (70 of 1951) for its recognition which was granted. If was re-incorporated in 1953 with its registered office at Jullunder City. A resolution for the voluntary winding up of the company as 'creditors' voluntary winding up' was passed on 8th February, 1958, and Messrs. Jai Krishan Suri and Haranam Dass Bhasin were appointed voluntary liquidators. After notice to the shareholders and also by publication of the notice in Hind Samachar, lists of contributories were settled on 20th/22nd May, 1959, by the voluntary liquidators vide annexures A, A. 1, A.2 and A.3. On 13th October, 1959, a call was made by the voluntary liquidators of Rs. 1.50 per share out of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H354
Mehar Singh, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Ram Partap petitioner. The facts and circumstances cut of which the petition has arisen are as below.2. The petitioner is mortgagee of house No. 1102/2 at Patiala. He avers that his share in the mortgage is half and the other half is with his nephew. The rent settled in the mortgage deed is Rs. 120/- per annum. In the days of the former Pepsu State the Patiala Municipality determined the annual rental value of the house at Rs. 324A. At that time Patiala was the capital of that State. Plow the assessing authority under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1940 (Punjab Act Ho. 17 of 1940), has determined Rs. 486/- per annum as the annual value of the house for purposes of that Act.3. It appears that on the date of hearing of the case before the assessing authority the petitioner was present, but he avers in paragraph (v) of the petition that the assessing authority told him that his objections will rece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H522
ORDERTek Chand, J.1. Smt. Bhagwan Kaur, widow of Balchtawar Singh, petitioner has moved this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the respective orders passed by respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Punjab and respondents NOS. 5 to 15 are the tenants of the petitioner.2. The petitioner owns land measuring 94 standard acres out of which land measuring 410 bigbas is under possession of respondents Nos. 5 to 15 who are cultivating the land as tenants-at-will under the petitioner. The land is situated in Tahsil Nabha to which the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, is applicable. To the lands situated in the territory of Punjab before merger, the law applicable is governed by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. No part of this land was at any material time under personal cultivation of the petitioner. In this case, the permissible limit as defined in Section 3 would be 30 standa...
Tag this Judgment!