Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1980 Page 4 of about 68 results (0.027 seconds)

Aug 05 1980 (HC)

Deepak theatre, Dhuri Vs. the State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-05-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H92

order1. this judgment will dispose of civil writ petitions nos. 1750 to 1955 and 1958 of 1971 and 6300 to 6306 of 1976 which involve the same question of law. the facts in the judgment are being given from c.w. p. no. 6300 of 1976.2. the petitioners is running a cinema at dhuri. it has been granted a licence by the district magistrate, sangrur, respondent no, 2 under section 5 of the punjab cinemas (regulation) act, 1952(hereinafter referred to as the act). it is alleged that it made three classes and fixed rates for each class. respondent no. 2 vide order dated feb 26, 1971 passed an order fixing the rates of the classes, which were lower than those prescribed by the petitioner and directing it further to create one more class, the entrance fee of which be fixed at 0. 80 paise. that order was challenged by the petitioner in civil writ petition no 1752 of 1971. there after respondent no. 2 again made new classes by abolishing earlier ones and fixed different admission rates vide order dated aug. 26, 1976. it may be mentioned that even these rates were less than those fixed by the petitioner.the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in c. w. p nos. 6300 of 1976. the writ petition has been contested by the respondents.3. the only question that arises for determination is an to whether condition 4 of the licence authorizing the licensing authority to make classes in the cinema halls and fix their rates is valid. in order to determine the question it will be relevant to refer .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 1980 (HC)

State of Punjab Vs. Amar Chand Walia

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-19-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H318

order1. in a suit against the punjab government by one of its employees, the inspector-general of police, punjab, had signed the written statement filed on behalf of the government as a person authorised by notification for the purpose of o. 27, r. 1, civil p. c. as the case related to the police department. the trial court, in compliance with the provisions of r. 5-b of o. 27, c.p.c., being of the opinion that a settlement was possible between the parties, desired, by order dated 17-1-1980, that on the next date of hearing, viz. 28-1-1980 the person, who had signed the written statement on behalf of the government, should appear in the court to assist it in effecting a settlement. an application was then moved on behalf of the inspector-general of police, punjab that a superintendent of his office who was a gazetted officer and was well conversant with the facts of the case, would appear in court to assist the court. this application was treated by the trial court as an application for review of its order dated 17-1-1980. the trial court rejected this application, vide its order dated 19-2-1980, holding that the grounds mentioned in the said application were not germane to the review of its earlier order dated 17-1-1980 and additionally observed that siuce the inspector-general of police, punjab had signed the written statement and he was one of the persons who bad been notified for the purpose of r. 1 of o. 27, c.p.c., it shows that he was the only person who could appear .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 1980 (HC)

Joginder Singh Saini Vs. State of Haryana and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-28-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H170

1. this order will dispose of five claimants' appeals r. f. as. nos. 688 to 692 of 1979 and five cross appeals r. f. as. 1109 to 1113 of 1979, as they arise out of the same acquisition proceedings.2. by notification dated 24th march, 1971 published on 30th march, 1971, the state of haryana acquired 11.38 acres of land in the area of faridabad for the planned development under s. 19. the claimants had set up orchard on the acquired land ad on open spaces the claimants were carrying on the business of nursery plantation. before the land acquisition collector the claimants asked for compensation for the land under neath the orchard, and the nursery plants. by award dated 22nd february, 1973 the land acquisition collector allowed compensation for the land at the rate of rs. 5.95 per square yard. for the orchard the claimants were allowed the following compensation as shown against their respective appeals :-r. f. a '' '' '' '' 688 689 690 691 692 of '' '' '' '' 1979 '' '' '' '' 44,122.00 48,019.00 25,137.00 59,682.00 51,141.00 for nursery plantation nothing was allowed and the claimants were allowed three months' time to remove the saplings. feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid award the claimants sought reference which came up for consideration before the additional district judge, gurgaon, who on the contest of the parties framed several issues. after the evidence was led, the learned additional district judge, gurgaon, by award dated 30th december, 1978, allowed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 1980 (HC)

Banwari Lal Vs. Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-09-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H74

order1. this writ petition is directed against the order of the financial commissioner, punjab, delegated with the powers of the central government under section 33 of the displaced persons (compensation and rehabilitation) act, 1954, (hereinafter called as the act) dated march 14, 1972, filed as annexure 'e' with the writ petition.2. an urban agricultural plot no. 1008 near masjid bhura khan in jullundur was purchased by the petitioner in auction held in july 1961 for rs. 1725/-. since the petitioner had a verified claim against the compensation admissible to him, earnest money as such was not paid but he executed an indemnity bond in lieu thereof. later on only a sum of rs. 743.56/- had been adjusted against his verified claim and for recovery of the balance amount of rs. 981.44/- a registered notice was issued to him by the managing officer on may 21, 1965. the said notice was, however, received back undelivered and it was reported thereon that the whereabouts of the petitioner were not known. the managing officer ultimately vide his order dated june 17, 1965, copy of which is annexure 'b', cancelled the sale in favour of the petitioner and the property was again disposed of by auction on november, 8, 1966 and was purchased by mehar singh respondent no. 5. the said bid was confirmed in his favour and the sale certificate was issued on may 16, 1967. the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the action f the settlement authorities in disposing of the property which had already .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 1980 (HC)

Radhey Shyam Vs. Haryana State

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-27-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H57

1. this order will dispose of r. f. as nos. 1728, 1729 and 1732 of 1979 as they arise out of the same acquisition proceedings and common award given by additional district judge, gurgaon.2. the state of haryana by notification dated 9th december, 1971 acquired 21 bighas and 15 biswas of land in the notified are of village hassanpur, tahsil palwal, district gurgaon, for establishing growers rest house and staff quarters. the aforesaid notification was followed by a notification under section 6 of the land acquisition act, 1894(herein after called the act.). by corrigendum notification dated 23rd august, 1973, issued under section 4 and 6 of the act, the purpose of the acquisition was extended for office and market besides the originally published purposes. the claimants filed a claim in regard to land at the rate of rs. 40/- per square yard and for hina plantation at the rate of rupees 2,000/- per acre besides claiming compensation for the buildings, wells etc. and for severance caused due to the acquistion. the land acquistion collector, vide award dated 24th january, 1975, awarded compensation for the land at the rate of rs. 5,480/- per acre and rs/ 4,370/- for the well and kothas to the claimant covered by r. f. a. no. 1729 of 1979. the claim of severance was declined and nothing was awarded for hina plantation. the claimants sought references which came up for consideration before the additional district judge, gurgaon, who on the contest of the parties, framed the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 1980 (HC)

Union of India Vs. Amrik Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-01-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H87

1. the state government acquired 137.11875 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of village halwara, tehsil jagraon, district ludhiana, for purposes of the union of india, that is for the construction and extension of halwara airfield, through notification dated nov. 26, 1968, published under s. 4 of the land acquisition act (hereinafter referred to as the act). the land acquisition collector determined the rate of compensation payable to the claimants after hearing them, at the following rates:1. khalas chahi ... rs. 9228/- per acre.2. niai, nehri. khalas nahri niai ... rs. 9528/- per acre.3. dakar rosli ... rs. 5400/- per acre.4. banjar ladid /banjar ... rs./ 5000/- per acre.kadim / gair mumkin2. as the awardees were not satisfied with the rate of compensation they sought various reference under s. 18 of the act and as a result thereof, the learned lower court through different but similar judgment determined the rate of compensation payable to the claimants at rupees 11778/- per acre for the acquired land besides rs. 4180/- per acre as damages for the delayed pronouncement of the award under s. 48a of the act. through these twenty-two r. f. as nos. 2013 to 2016 and 2022 to 2039 of 1979, the state has made a grouse of this enhancement and the award of damages under section 48 of the act. on the other hand, all the claimants have filed cross objections nos. 17-ci to 21-ci and 23 -ci to 39-ci of 1979 to these appeal claiming compensation at a still higher rate. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 1980 (HC)

Punjab State Vs. Chaman Lal

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-29-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H114

1. the state government acquired 177 bighas of land bhatinda for the construction of a marshalling yard of guru nanak thanmal plant at bhatinda by the punjab state electricity board. the requisite notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act (for short, the act) was published on september 21, 1971.the land acquisition collector after hearing the claimants determined the market price of the acquired land at the following rates:nehri rs. 1400/- per bighabarani rs. 800/- per bigha chaman lal one of the claimants (now respondent) was not satisfied with the adequacy of compensation awarded and sought a reference under section 18 of the act; as a result thereof the said court enhanced the rate of compensation to the following extents:-nehri rs. 10,000/- per acrebarani rs. 6,000/- per acre 2. the state has made a grouse of this enhancement and thus this appeal.3. at the time of the hearing of the appeal, leaned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection about the tenability of the same on the ground that though the heading of the appeal reads 'punjab state through the land acquisition collector,' yet it is only the collector who has filed this appeal and it is he alone who has singed or executed the power of attorney in favour of gian chand gupta, advocate, who actually filed and presented this appeal learned counsel asserted that the state government could only file an appeal through one of its government pleaders, i. e. the advocate general or any of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1980 (HC)

Tara Singh and ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chand ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-01-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H77

order1. briefly the case of the petitioners is that they were small landowners and respondent no. 3 was a tenant under them on land measuring 51 kanals 10 marlas situate in village bidhimal, district faridkot. they made an application under punjab security of land tenures act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for ejectment of the said respondent before the assistant collector ist grade, muktsar, who passed a conditional order on april 20, 1970 that he (respondent no. 3) be ejected subject to his settlement on surplus area.2. it is alleged that respondent no. 3 failed to pay the rent regularly since kharif, 1971 without sufficient cause and therefore the petitioners moved an application under section 14-a (i) read with section 9(ii) of the act for the ejectment of respondent no. 3 from the above said land, before the assistant collector ist grade. he gave a finding that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondent no 3 and the latter had failed to make payment of the rent without sufficient cause. consequently he ordered ejectment of the latter vide order dated march 31, 1975. having felt aggrieved against that order, respondent no.3 preferred an appeal before the collector, faridkot, who dismissed the same on september 29, 1975 and upheld the order of the assistant collector ist grade. he filed a revision petitioner before the commissioner, ferozepore division who held that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 1980 (HC)

Rattan Singh Vs. D.R. Kapoor

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-16-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H153

s.p. goyal, j.1. this petition under section 15 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949(hereinafter referred to as the act), as applicable to the union territory of chandigarh, has been placed before us on a reference by r. n. mittal j., vide order dated may 9, 1980. 2. the vexatious question which has eluded authoritative pronouncement so long is as to whether the tenant of a residential building would become liable to ejectment under section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the act for using the said building for the purpose other than that for which it was leased, if after the commencement of the lease he adopts one of the professions mentioned in the schedule to the act his business. the admitted facts for his business. the admitted facts leading to this controversy are that the demised premises were let out to the respondent for residential purpose in the year 1971 when he was in the employment of the government as an engineer. some time after retirement, he was enrolled as an advocate and then he started using part of the demised premises for the purpose of his profession. thereupon the landlord filed this petition on january 6, 1978 for his ejectment on the ground that by setting up his office and using a part of the building for his profession, he has used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out and has thus become liable to ejectment. the tenant admitted that he was using the demised premises for his profession and for his residence but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1980 (HC)

Daljit Kumar and anr. Vs. Popal Dass

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-03-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H211

1. popal dass respondent filed a suit for the recovery of rs. 570/- against the petitioners on the basis of a pronote. the trial court granted a decree for rs 500/- in favour of the respondent being the principal amount, but declined the claim for interest and costs in view of the fact that the respondent who was admittedly a money lender had not sent any accounts to the petitioners before filing the suit. the appellate court, i.e. the additional district judge, sangrur, affirmed the decree of the trial court. the present revision petition has, therefore, been filed by the petitioners to challenge the decree passed in the suit. 2. the respondent has not chosen to appear in spite of service, nor is he represented by any counsel in fact, according to the report of the process serving agency, he refused to accept the summons. he is, therefore, presumed to have been served. the revision petition has been heard ex parte. 3. the sole point has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent having been admitted to be a money lender, he had a statutory duty under section 3 of the punjab registration of money lenders act, 1938 to produce the certificate of registration granted under the act which he never did. a consequence of this default is that his suit has to be dismissed as prescribed under section 3 of the act. this mandatory provision of law appears to have been ignored by both the courts below. if any authority is required on the point, the same .....

Tag this Judgment!


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