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!

Jan 10 1972 (HC)

Brij Mohan and ors. Vs. Jag Mohan and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-10-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H317

1. on 9th november, 1956 vide rent note, exhibit p-2, banarsi dass took a shop, situate in faridabad, district gurgaon, on rent from jag mohan son of jai narayan for a period of 11 months @ rs.4/- per month. the tenancy was to commence from 1st november, 1956. even after the expiry of the period of tenancy the tenant remained in possession of the property and continued paying rent to the landlord. on 5th january, 1959, another rent note, exhibit p-1, was written by the tenant in favour of the landlord and this was also for 11 months and at the same rate of rent, namely, rs.4/- per mensem. banarsi dass, subsequently, died on 14th december, 1965. on 11th april, 1966, a notice was issued by the landlord to his legal representatives asking them to vacate the premises, because the tenancy in favour of banarsi dass had come to an end and they were occupying the shop as mere trespassers, and in case, they did not do so, they would have to pay rs.100/- per month as damages for use and occupation of the premises. after issuing this notice, since the shop was not vacated, a suit for possession was brought on 27th may, 1966, by the landlord and his father jai narayan against brij mohan and others, the legal representatives of banarsi dass, treating them as trespassers and an amount of rs.400/- as compensation for use and occupation of the said premises for four moths was also claimed in the suit. it was alleged that by the death of banarsi dass, who was a statutory tenant, the tenancy .....

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!

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