Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1969 Page 1 of about 25 results (0.025 seconds)

May 30 1969 (HC)

Hazari and ors. Vs. Zila Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-30-1969

Reported in : AIR1970P&H215

d.k. mahajan, j. 1. this order will dispose of three execution second appeals nos. 1131, 1132 and 1133 of 1968, arising out of execution proceedings, in which important questions of law have arisen. all these appeals will get settled by the answer that is given to these questions of law. they were initially placed before me in single bench; and by my order dated the 30th of september, 1968, i referred them to a full bench in view of the fact that the questions of law, that required determination, were of considerable importance. moreover, it was contended that the single bench decision of this court in ram singh v. gainda ram, air 1953 punj 163, and the decision of the lahore high court, which the learned single judge followed, namely. mehr khan and shah din v. ghulam rasul, ilr 2 lah 282 = (air 1922 lah 300), were expressed in too wide a language; and, in any case, did not lay down the correct rule of law. 2. before proceeding to state the facts, i may state the principal question of law afresh which requires determination:-- 'whether the purchaser of land from a pre-emptor of which the pre-emptor has become the owner in pursuance of a pre-emption decree after complying with the provisions of order 20, rule 14, civil procedure code, could execute the decree in order to obtain possession of the land purchased by him?'the other questions of law are subsidiary to this question and will be dealt with at their proper place. 3. the facts, which have given rise to these appeals, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 1969 (HC)

Bega and ors. Vs. Shadi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-21-1969

Reported in : AIR1970P& H298

d.k. mahajan, j.1. this second appeal is directed against the decision of the learn-ed additional district judge, ambala, at karnal partly modifying the decision of the trial court decreeing the plaintiffs' suit.2. the plaintiffs as well as the defendants owned separate khewats of land la village kachhana, tehsil kaithal, dis-trict karnai. besides their khewat lands they also owned shamilat land. this shamilat land was known as 'thulla badhahan'. during the consolidation of holdings in the village the shamilat land was partitioned and it was allotted to the khewatdars along with their separate khewat lands. the plaintiffs allege that the area of shamilat thulla badhahan owned by the parties was 1.318 bighas 14 biswas and out of this the plaintiffs owned three-fourth share and the defendants one-fourth share and that during the consolidation the defendants have wrongly been allotted land measuring 484 bighas 12 biswas out of the shamilat land and the plaintiffs have wrongly been allotted 834 bighas 2 biswas of land. in fact the plaintiffs are entitled to 984 bighas 1/2 biswas of land and the defendants should have been allotted only 329 bighas 131/2 biswas of land. it was with regard to this excess allotment of the shamilat land to the defendants that the present suit was riled. the contention of the plaintiffs prevailed in the courts below and accordingly the necessary decree was ultimately granted by the learned additional district judge.3. it will be proper at this stage to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1969 (HC)

Kanianwali Co-operative Farming Society at Kanianwali Through Its Secr ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-30-1969

Reported in : AIR1970P& H157

mahajan, j. 1. this full bench has been constituted in order to resolve the conflict that has arisen in this court, as to whether the provisions of the punjab security of land tenures (amendment and validation) act, 1962 (act no. 14 of 1962) are retrospective or prospective? one set of decisions has given retrospec-tivity to all the provisions of this act including section 19-b; whereas the other set of decisions has merely given section 19-b, as amended by this act, a prospective effect.2. in bhalle ram v. state of punjab, 1962-64 pun lr 331, it was decided bv me that transfers made before the 30th of july, 1958, of the surplus area by a land-owner cannot be ignored vis-avis the transferee; and such transfer has to be taken into consideration, so far as the transferee is concerned, to find out whether the land with the transferee is inexcess of the permissible area after taking into consideration the land already held by him. in other words, after adding the land obtained by the transfer to the land already held by the transferee, it has to be determined under section 19-b, whether there is any surplus land in the hands of the transferee.3. in the wake of bhalle ram's decision, 1962-64 pun lr 331 the legislature stepped in and enacted the punjab security of land tenures (amendment and validation) act, 1962 (act no. 14 of 1962). the letters patent bench reversed bhalle ram's decision 1962-64 pun lr 331 in view of the amendment. the decision of the letters patent bench is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1969 (HC)

Niranjan Singh Sunder Singh and ors. Vs. Kasturi Lal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-22-1969

Reported in : 1971CriLJ79

order1. this is a recommendation by the additional sessions judge, ludhiana, to the effect that the order of the executive magistrate, 1st class, ludhiana, passed on 27th july, 1968, under section 145(6), criminal p.c., be set aside and the case sent back to him or to any other magistrate for fresh hearing and disposal of the issues arising between the parties. 2. kasturi lal and others described as parties 3 and 4 (hereinafter called purchasers) are alleged to have purchased 65 killas of land from one bhim sain son of bodh raj, situate in village kaneja, tahsil and district ludhiana, by a registered sale-deed, a mutation in pursuance of which is supposed to have been sanctioned in their favour on 1st april, 1968. it is a common ground between the parties that niranjan singh and others described as parties 1 and 2 (hereinafter called tenants) were in cultivating possession of the land. it is alleged that the purchasers paid a sum of rs.20,000/- to niranjan singh, the main tenant, on 9th april, 1968, as compensation for the standing crops in a area of about 53 killas of land in order to obtain possession thereof. niranjan singh, according to the purchasers, executed a receipt, swore an affidavit to that effect before the magistrate 2nd class phillaur, and voluntarily delivered possession to the purchasers. niranjan singh and his party claimed that they never received rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the standing crops, nor was any receipt or affidavit executed by the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1969 (HC)

Jai Singh Rathi and ors. Vs. State of Haryana Through the Chief Secy. ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-28-1969

Reported in : AIR1970P& H379

1. this is a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution by four petitioners, namely, mr. jai singh rathi, mr. mahant ganga sagar, mr. ganpat ram and mr. fateh chand vij, petitioners 1 to 4, all members of the haryana legislative assembly, for a writ, order or direction to quash the proceedings of the haryana vidhan sabha of february 5, 1969 during the course of which the petitioners were suspended for the remainder of the session of the legislative assembly, and for quashing all the subsequent proceedings of the legislative assembly leading to the passage of the appropriation bill for the year 1969-70 on february 12, 1969. the respondents to the petition are the state of haryana, mr. bansi lal, chief minister of haryana, mr. ran singh, mr. speaker of the haryana legislative assembly, secretary of the haryana vidhan sabha, and smt. chandra vati and mr. banarsi pass gupta, members of the haryana legislative assembly, respondents 1 to 6.2. there was a mid-term poll in haryana state for the election to the haryana legislative assembly on may 14, 1968. the total strength of the membership of the assembly is 81. congress party secured 48 seats, other various parties secured together 27 seats, and there were 6 independents. one member of the congress party was elected mr. speaker, respondent 3, and so the strength of the parties in the house was 47 congress as against 33 others, including 6 independents. so the congress party had a clear majority in the house. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 22 1969 (HC)

Hari Chand Rattan Chand and Co. Vs. the Deputy Excise and Taxation Com ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-22-1969

Reported in : AIR1970P& H206; [1969]24STC258(P& H)

tuli, j. 1. these four writ petitions (c. w. no. 1232 of 1965, messrs. hari chand rattan chand and co. v. the deputy excise and taxation commissioner, c. w. no. 1686 of 1965, messrs. kashmiri lal kasturi lal and co. v. the deputy excise and taxation commissioner, c. w. no. 539 of 1966, messrs. raj brothers v. asst. excise and taxation commr. and c. w. no. 1819 of 1966, messrs. highway motors v. chief enforcement officer, punjab, patiala) came up for hearing before my learned brother sarkaria, j.,on april 1, 1968, and it was urged that a common question of law had arisen as to whether the excise and taxation commissioner is competent under section 21(1) of the punjab general sales tax act, 1948, hereinafter called the act, to reopen an assessment order after the expiry of the period prescribed in sub-section (6) of section 11 of that act. it was pointed out to the learned judge that this very question arose in national rayon corporation ltd. v. addl. asst. excise and taxation commr., punjab, 15 stc 746 = (air 1965 punj 62), and the view taken by the division bench in that case was that the legislature did not intend to fetter the power of the commissioner under section 21 by any rule of limitation and, therefore, left it to the commissioner's discretion to exercise his power at any time. the correctness of this decision was doubted in view of the decision of their lordships of the supreme court in state of orissa v. debaki debi, 15 stc 153 = (air 1964 sc 1413), and it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1969 (HC)

Het Ram Lallu Singh and ors. Vs. State

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-08-1969

Reported in : AIR1970P& H85; 1970CriLJ352

s.s. sandhawalia, j. 1. the six appellants being the sons and grandsons of mangla ram were brought to trial on charges under sections 148, 302/149, 302/149, 307/149, 823/149 and 323/149, indian penal code,before the court of session at ferozepur. brij lal, appellant was charged in a separate case under section 27 of the arms act for the unlawful use of his licenced gun but both the cases were tried together on the appellants' request in order to avoid any prejudice to them by separate trials. by a curious process of reasoning the learned sessions judge convicted het ram and banwari lal appellants only under section 302 read with section 149, indian penal code, for the murders of shiv lal and gopi ram deceased respectively and sentenced them to death but held the other four appellants guilty under section 326 read with section 149, indian penal code. he imposed a sentence of 4 years' rigorous imprisonment under section 326 read with section 149, indian penal code, on three counts on lalu ram, brij lal and kanshi ram appellants whilst balram appellant due to his tender age and on the finding that he acted under the influence of his father was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment on these counts. separate convictions and sentences were also recorded under section 323/149 indian penal code, and section 148. all these sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. brij lal appellant was, however, acquitted of the charge under section 27 of the arms act. all the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 1969 (HC)

Madan Lal Lamba Vs. Inderjit Mehta

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-19-1969

Reported in : AIR1970P& H200; 1970CriLJ726

ordergopal singh, j.1. this is recommendation under section 438, criminal procedure code made by the sessions judge, bhatinda in a revision petition filed by madan lal lamba, sub-divisional officer against inderjit mehta, contractor from the judgment dated february 6, 1967 given by shri dina nath, judicial magistrate 1st class, bhatinda holding that sanction for prosecution of madan lal lamba by a complaint filed by inderjit mehta for offence under section 218, indian penal code was not necessary.2. briefly stated, the facts are that inderjit mehta entered into a contract on april 25, 1964 for supply of stone ballast to the public works department of the punjab government for construction of lassara nala and bhatinda-dabwali road.3. inderjit mehta supplied 1400 cubic feet of stone ballast to madan lal lamba in his capacity as sub-divisional officer in charge of the contract. the sub-divisional officer checked the material on june 3, 1964. he made an entry at page 11 in the officer's note book no. 35. therunning bill of the amount thus due was drawn up on february 23, 1965. the payment of the amount due is said to have been postponed by the sub-divisional officer on one pretext or the other. on august 31, 1965, the contractor came to know that the sub-divisional officer had replaced page 11 of the officer's note book by inserting in that book another leaf bearing that page number. the page replaced did not contain the entry pertaining to the supply of 1400 cubic feet of stone .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 1969 (HC)

Jai Gopal Mehra Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-20-1969

Reported in : [1969]74ITR594(P& H)

r.s. narula, j. 1. in this petition under article 226 of the constitution, jai gopal mehra, a member of the erstwhile jaishi ram mehra (hindu undivided family) of amritsar, has impugned the validity of notices under section 34(1)(a) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, dated november 16, 1960 (annexure 'b' in respect of the assessment year 1943-44 and annexure 'c'of the same date in respect of the assessment year 1944-45), addressed to jaishi ram (hindu undivided family). since names of several independent income-tax assessee units are likely to be mentioned in this judgment, it may be clarified at this stage that jaishi ram was the son of kishen das and formed during his lifetime a hindu undivided family with his wife and his four sons including jai gopal mehra, petitioner. jaishi ram in his individual capacity was a partner of a firm known as walaiti ram jaishi ram. there were several other partners in that firm, but none of them was a brother of the petitioner. jaishi ram (hindu undivided family), with which assessee alone we are directly concerned in this case, was disrupted by an award dated september 12, 1960, registered with the sub-registrar, amritsar, on january 5, 1961, it is stated by the petitioner that acomplete partition of the hindu undivided family property was effected. by an order dated august 24,1965) passed by the income-tax officer under section 25a of the 1922 act, the disruption and partition was accepted by the income-tax authorities. jaishi ram died on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 1969 (HC)

Balbir Singh Vs. the State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-05-1969

Reported in : AIR1970P& H459

h.r. sodhi, j. 1. this writ petition raises a question as to the validity of theorder passed by the director of industries, punjab, on september 7, 1968, whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service after having been served with three months' notice. 2. facts are not in dispute. the petitioner balbir singh was originally appointed as manager in wool spinning and weaving centre at patiala on may 31, 1954 by the state government of the erstwhile government of patiala and east punjab states union. he was transferred to chandigarh as marketing assistant in the same grade of pay. he earned promotions afterwards and was transferred sometimes to patiala and sometimes to chandigarh on various posts till 1966 when he was posted to higher job with more emoluments as sales organiser in the office of marketing officer in punjab government emporium, chandigarh. in may, 1967, the petitioner is said to have proceeded on earned leave. on return from leave, he was recommended by the marketing officer for promotion as sales manager hi the scale of rs. 200-400. it was stated in the recommendation that the petitioner was an experienced hand, hard-working and intelligent official and his application deserved favourable consideration by the department. it appears that the petitioner was making representations to the director of industries, punjab, respondent 2, asking for promotion and a reply received by the immediate superior officer of the petitioner namely the marketing officer .....

Tag this Judgment!

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