Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1972 Page 19 of about 183 results (0.018 seconds)

Mar 28 1972 (HC)

East India Cotton Manufacturing Company Private Limited Vs. the Assess ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-28-1972

Reported in : [1973]30STC489(P& H)

ranjit singh sarkaria, j.1. appellant is a company registered under the companies act, 1956, having its registered office at calcutta and a factory at f'aridabad (haryana state) for the manufacture and processing .of textiles. it is a registered dealer under the punjab general sales tax act, 1948. it also obtained on 1st july, 1957, a certificate of registration (annexure a) under section 7 of the central sales tax act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). its business, as mentioned in this certificate, is: 'textile manufacturing, sale, purchase, wholesale distribution, sale and purchase of yarn and waste and textile machinery'. the certificate also specifies the class of goods for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the act. among other things, such goods include cotton textile yarn, dyeing colours and other chemicals for use in the manufacture.2. the company purchases these goods on the basis of the aforesaid certificate and issues 'c' forms to the selling dealers who claim the deductions and pay tax at the rate of 3 per cent, in the state from which the movement of goods has originated.3. a notice was issued to the company on 17th september, 1966, by the excise and taxation officer, gurgaon, in these terms:it has come to notice that you have been misusing the registration certificate under the central sales tax act, 1956. you are, therefore, directed to appear before me on 29th september, 1966, at 10-00 a.m. at canal rest house, faridabad, and show .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 1972 (HC)

Bakhtawar Singh and ors. Vs. Nirmal Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-07-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H448

order1. on 16th july, 1966, amar singh sold the agricultural land in dispute, situate in village dadrala, district patiala, to mehar singh, who, subsequently, sold the same to some other persons, that sale led to a suit of pre-emption by the sons of mehar singh, namely, satpal singh and bhag singh. they succeeded and thus became the owners of the land in question. thereafter nirmal singh and others, sons of amar singh, brought a usual declaratory suit under custom challenging the sale made by their father amar singh in favour of mehar singh.2. the suit was contested and ultimately dismissed on 2nd july, 1960 on the finding that the land was not ancestral. the appeal against this decree was also dismissed on 19th october, 1960, by the learned district judge, patiala. it might be stated that during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate court, on 14th october, 1960, an application under order 41, rule 27, code of civil procedure, was filed by the plaintiffs, but the same was also rejected by the learned judge.3. a second appeal was then taken to this court, which was allowed on 24th february, 1971, and it was held that the learned district judge was wrong in rejecting the application under order 41, rule 27, code of civil procedure, filed by the plaintiffs before him. the said application was, consequently, granted and the case remanded to the district judge for re-decision after allowing the parties an opportunity to produce additional evidence.4. during the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 1972 (HC)

Chuni Lal Om Parkash Vs. Inder Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-13-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H353

order1. this is tenant's petition for revision against the order of the appellate authority affirming on appeal the decision of the rent controller ordering eviction of the tenant.2. the rent controller ordered the eviction on the ground that the landlord required the premises for his personal use. the decision of the rent controller on this ground was affirmed on appeal by the appellate authority. besides this there was another controversy both before the rent controller and the appellate authority, namely, that there was no valid notice under section 106 of the transfer of property act (hereinafter called the act), and, therefore, the landlord's application was liable to dismissal.3. so far as the facts go there is no dispute. a notice under section 106 of the act was duly issued by the landlord. after that notice an application for ejectment of the tenant was made on ground of personal necessity. that application was got dismissed by the landlord. thereafter, the landlord waited for a year and five months and then filed the present application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity and also that the tenant had violated the terms of the lease. the tenant contested the application and also took the plea that there being no valid notice under s. 106 of the act, the application for eviction was bound to fail. the rent controller observed that in terms of the lease notice under section 106 of the act was not required. one of the terms of the lease was .....

Tag this Judgment!

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