Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 16 results (0.025 seconds)

Nov 16 1956 (HC)

Sadhu Singh Vs. Chanda Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-16-1956

Reported in : AIR1957P& H108

bishan narain, j. 1. this second appeal has been filed by subedar major sadhu singn against the decision of the additional district judge, amrit-sar, dismissing his appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial court to the effect that the possession of the property in dispute should be given to the plaintiffs. 2. the land in dispute at one time belonged to jagat singh father of subedar sadhu singh. on 27th june, 1895, he mortgaged his jand with dhanna singh for rs. 900/-. then on 16th november, 1900 he mortgaged it again with dhanna singh for rs. 1600/-. the third mortgage was effected by him on 11th december, 1905, in favour of dhanna singh for rs. 2,000/- and finally the fourth mortgage was effected on 3rd june, 1914, for rs. 3,850/-. this time the mortgage was by jagat singh in favour of pal singh, tehl singh and mehl singh sons of dhanna singh. on 6th august, 1943 sadhu singh applied for restitution of the mortgaged land in the court of the special collector, lahore, under the provisions of the punjab restitution of mortgaged lands act, 1938 (punjab act no. iv of 1938). apparently this application was contested on behalf of the mortgagees and on 6th march, 1945, the collector ordered redemption of the mortgages on payment of rs. 77/-odd. the mortgagees filed an appeal in the court of the commissioner at lahore but its fate is not known in view of the partition of the country during the pendency of that appeal. the village in which the land in dispute is situate was a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1956 (HC)

Sarup Lal Vs. Sm. Kaushalya Devi and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-14-1956

Reported in : AIR1956P& H225

kapur, j.1. this is an application made by sarup lal who has obtained leave to appeal to the supreme court against a judgment of this court dated 24-12-1953. this certificate was granted on 21-7-1954. he has now applied under order 45 rule 13 civil p. c. praying that the operation of the order of this court be suspended and respondents 1 & 2 be restrained, from alienating the property sold to them. rule was issued by me and as i was of the opinion that this matter should be heard by a division bench and not by a single bench the case has been placed before this bench.2. leave was granted on 21-7-1954 and the application for stay was made on 26-9-1955.3. an objection has been raised that under order 45 the prayer made in this petition cannot be granted. the present petitioner sold to the opposite parties some land and disputes arose in the revenue department as to mutation and the chief commissioner ordered the mutation to be set aside and mutation proceedings to be started de novo.it was against this order that the opposite parties brought a petition to this court under article 226 of the constitution. this petition was allowed and in the present application made by sarup lal petitioner it is stated that during the years 1954 and 1955 the opposite parties entered into 41 transactions of sale with the result that about half of the land sold has already been sold.4. the petitioner relies upon clauses (b) and (d) of rule 13(2) of order 45, but in proceedings such as the one now .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1956 (HC)

Mehtab Singh Gurbachan Singh Vs. Amrik Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-06-1956

Reported in : AIR1957P& H146

bishan narain, j. 1. this second appeal has been filed by mohtab singh plaintiff agairst the dismissal of the suit by both the lower courts. according to the plain- tiff's allegations the parties are related to each other though a little distantly and the genealogical table set up by the plaintiff so far as it is relevant to the present case is as follows: jai singh _________________|______________ | | jawahar singh bahadar singh | | lehna singh=mt. raj=mst. attar=mst. | (d.s.p.) kaur kaur bhagwani | | (widows) | mst. lachmi mohar singh (daughter) ___________|___ | | | | gurbachan singh sadhu singh | _________|______________ | | | | | | mehtab raja daulat naran- | singh singh singh jan singh | (plaintiff) | ____________________________________________ | | gaja singh sardara defedant | no. 2. ajit singh defendant no. 1.2. the property in dispute originally belonged to jawahar singh son of jai singh. he had a son lehna singh who died in the life-time of his lather leaving three widows. jawahar singh is alleged to have executed a will on 2nd april, 1901 and it is alleged that he got it registered. jawahar singh died on 7th december, 1901 and after his death the three widows of his pre-deceas-ed son took possession of the property.subsequently attar kaur and then raj kaur died and then bhagwani alias bhagwan kaur alone got posseision of the property. she executed a will on 8th march, 1937. bequeathing the property to mehtab singh. she then gifted the same property to him by a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1956 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sardarni Harbans Kaur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-17-1956

Reported in : AIR1957P& H164

kapur, j. 1. this is a defendant's appeal against a judgment and decree passed by mr. ishar singh, sub-judge 1st class, karnal dated 16th of march 1950 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for damages for causing the death of sohan singh nanda as a result of collision between two trains belonging to the defendants,2. sohan singh nanda belonged to some place in the rawalpindi district but before the partition he had come to stay in amritsar where he had started business, and according to the plaintiffs he was carrying on extensive business. on 6th october 1947 he started from amritsar to go to delhi and it is stated that he reached ambala cantonment before 10th of october on which day he, it is alleged, boarded a train which was going from ambala cantonment station to delhi. although there is a conflict of testimony, but the evidence of the guard d. w. 3 kundan lal shows that the train consisted of 36 wagons in all of which one was a passenger bogie, which was used for the military escort and the rest were goods wagons. assistant station master jamiat ram d. w. 1 who was in ambala cantonment at the time has also stated that the train in dispute was a goods train and a passenger bogie used to be attached to such trains for the convenience of the military escort.3. the plaintiffs' case is that sohan singh nanda along with other relations had got into this train and there was a collision at 10-30 p.m. on 10th of october 1947 near mile no. 77 between tarauri and karnal railway stations. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1956 (HC)

L. Manohar Lal Nathan Mal Vs. Madan Lal Murari Lal

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-02-1956

Reported in : AIR1956P& H190

orderfalshaw, j.1. the circumstances giving rise to this revision petition are as follows. the respondent madan lal jain was a tenant of the petitioner manohar lal jain in certain premises at a monthly rent of rs. 75/-. the latter instituted al suit for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he had not paid the rent for the months of march and april 1953 amounting to rs. 150/-. he did not, however, add any claim for the recovery of the sum due as arrears.at an early stage before filing his written statement, though not actually on his first appearance in the suit, the defendant deposited in court the sum of rs. 150/- together with costs. in his written statement he contended that the rent of the premises was excessive and asked the court to fix the standard rent and also claimed that he was entitled to be credited for a sum of rs. 50/- which he had spent on repairs.2. the trial court framed the issues :1. whether the defendant has deposited the arrears of rent and costs due within the time allowed by the court? if so, how does it affect the suit? 2. whether the defendant is liable to ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent? 3. what is the standard rent? 4. whether the defendant has done repairs? if so, what, and whether he is entitled to charge the same from the plaintiff without payment of court-fee? 3. at a subsequent stage the plaintiff challenged the framing of issues 3 and 4 and applied for them to be deleted. the trial court took the view that since the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1956 (HC)

Om Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, P ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-24-1956

Reported in : [1956]30ITR12(P& H)

bishan narain, j. - om prakash is one of the proprietors of the firm hans raj and company. this firm was during 1943-44 carrying on its business at phagwara (kapurthala state). an income-tax amounting to rs. 33,750 was imposed on the firm for the assessment year 1943-44 by order dated the 30th of april, 1945. a demand notice was served on the assessee firm on the 12th of november, 1945, but admittedly no tax was realized by the kapurthala state income-tax authorities. on the 15th of may, 1951, the income-tax department of the kapurthala state was abolished. in july, 1951, the tahsildar, phagwara, called upon om prakash to pay rs. 33,750, and this notice was sent to him at the instance of the income-tax officer, jullundur. the tahsildar, having proceeded to take proceedings under section 46 of the indian income-tax act, om prakash has filed the present petition under article 226 of the constitution to get these proceedings quashed. a single judge of this court has referred the case for decision by a division bench.mr. tek chand on behalf of the petitioner has raised three points before us. he has urged (1) that the indian income-tax authorities have no power to collect tax levied by the kapurthala authorities, (2) that in the present case certificate of non-payment as contemplated in section 46 (2) was sent to the tahsildar, phagwara, and (3) that in any case the proceedings for the recovery of this amount have been commenced after the expiry of one year from the date of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 1956 (HC)

The Management the Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi Vs. the Chief Commi ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-18-1956

Reported in : AIR1957P& H102; (1957)IILLJ466P& H

orderfalshaw, j. 1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution by a company, the hindustan times ltd. of new delhi, challenging the reference by the delhi state government under sections 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the industrial disputes act of 1947 of an alleged industrial dispute between the management of the company and its editorial workmen to an industrial tribunal. 2. briefly stated the facts are as follows. m. l. madan, respondent no. 3 entered the employment of the company as a sub-editor in january, 1950. the terms of his employment are contained in annexure 'b' to the petition providing inter alia that he should be paid rs. 300 per mensem in the grade' of rs. 200-20-400 and that his appointment should be for three years, terminable thereafter on two months' notice by either side. apparently in december 1955 he was found guilty of some error in his work as regards one of the front page headlines which resulted in the press having to be stopped after 300 copies of the following day's issue had been printed, and the correction resulted in a delay in the issuing of the paper, and on the 10th of december he was informed by the news editor that he . need not report for duty again until he received further instructions. the respondent. apparently objected and tried to get this order set aside but finally he was dismissed from the company's service by the managing editor on the 23rd of december. 3. m. l. madan was apparently a founder member and a member of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 1956 (HC)

Mohan Singh Vs. Lajya Ram and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-27-1956

Reported in : AIR1956P& H188

orderbhandari, c.j. 1. this petition raises a questions upon the interpretation of the expression 'resides' appearing in section 20, civil p. c. 2. the plaintiff is one lajya ram, a broker of lahore while the defendants are mr. m. s. oberoi, director of oberoi hotels limited, and rai bahadur jodha mal, a well-known contractor of the punjab. in the year 1946 mr. oberoi expressed a desire to purchase the nedous hotel at lahore from rai bahadur jodha mal and requested the plaintiff to negotiate the purchase. the plaintiff brought the parties together and induced the owner to enter into an agreement for the sale of the property for a large sum of money. mr. oberot refused to purchase the property and the transaction could not be completed, the defendants declined to pay the commission to which the plaintiff considered himself entitled and the plaintiff accordingly brought a suit for the recovery of a sum of rs. 79,500/-. 3. the defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the courts at delhi to deal with the case, but the trial court came to the conclusion that although no part of the cause of action had arisen in delhi, mr. oberoi had been residing in delhi not merely temporarily but for sufficiently long periods, that he had been carrying on business in delhi and that he was personally working for gain in delhi. the court accordingly permitted the plaintiff to bring the suit in delhi not only against mr. oberoi against whom substantial relief was claimed but also against rai .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 22 1956 (HC)

Arjan Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Commissioner

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-22-1956

Reported in : [1956]7STC457(P& H)

khosla, j.1. these are two petitions under article 226 of the constitution in which orders passed by the excise and taxation commissioner cancelling the registration certificates of the petitioners are being challenged. the registration certificates were cancelled under the provisions of section 7(4) of the east punjab general sales tax act, east punjab act no. xlvi of 1948.2. the facts in the two matters before me are not identical but the principle involved is the same. in both these petitions it has been alleged that no notice was given to the petitioners before their registration certificates were cancelled and therefore they were not given an opportunity to show cause against the order of cancellation. it is admitted in the petition of arjan singh that no opportunity for showing cause was given to the petitioner! with regard to the other case of messrs madan lal arora it is not denied that no opportunity was given. in both cases it is alleged on behalf of the state that the law does not make it incumbent upon the excise and taxation commissioner to give opportunity for showing cause before he cancels the registration certificate under section 7(4) of the act. therefore the first point which arises in both the cases is whether an opportunity should have been given to the petitioners before their certificates were cancelled.3. the second point relates to the order passed by the financial commissioner on appeal. both the petitioners appealed to the financial commissioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 1956 (HC)

Babu Ram Budhu Mal and ors. Vs. Dhan Singh Bishan Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-17-1956

Reported in : AIR1957P& H169

gurnam singh, j.1. this regular second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of rs. 975 plus interest. the suit was decreed by the trial court. in appeal the decree was reversed and the suit was dismissed. the facts which gave rise to this litigation were as follows:--jumma and others mortgaged (simple mortgage) 76 bighas of agricultural land for rs. 3,500 with the plaintiffs. some time later partition of the land took place. out of the land falling to his share jumma mortgaged with possession 25 bighas of land with defendants kaka singh and dhanna singh. out of the mortgage money rs. 875 were left with the defendants second mortgagees for payment to the plaintiffs. defendants did not pay the money to the plaintiffs. the latter, therefore, instituted the present suit for the recovery of the money left by the mortgagor with the second mortgagees.the suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that there was no privity of contract between them and the plaintiffs arid the latter therefore were not competent to sue. the finding of the trial court was in favour of the plaintiffs. it was reversed by the lower appellate court and the suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs being strangers to the contract were not entitled to sue. plaintiffs appeal.2. learned counsel for the appellants urges that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree as the contract between jumma the mortgagor and the defendants the mortgagees was for the benefit of the plaintiffs. they being .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //