Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1980 Page 5 of about 68 results (0.020 seconds)

Oct 01 1980 (HC)

Roshan Lal and anr. Vs. Munshi Ram and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-01-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H73

order1. munshi ram and kidar nath landlords of the property in dispute which is a shop situated-in hariana, tehsil and district hoshiarpur, filed an application under section 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949, against ram lal roshan lal and pawan kumar, with the allegation that the shop in question was let out to ram lal on february 20, 1959 on a monthly rent of rs. 11/- and ram lal aforesaid also executed a rent note in favour of the landlords as evidence of the transaction. it is alleged by the landlords that ram lal was in arrears of rent to the tune of rs. 322/- up to december 20, 1970 and he had also not paid house tax for eleven years at the rate of rs. 10.80/- per year, as per agreement between the parties. they further alleged that ram lal had sublet the shop to roshan lal; and pawan kumar without the consent of the landlords and these person were running their business in the shop. the landlords, therefore, prayed that all these three persons be ordered to be ejected from the shop.2. the above application was resisted by the two petitioners roshan lal and pawan kumar as also ram lal who had executed the rent note. the arrears of rent including interest and costs were tendered on the first date of hearing which were accepted by the landlords with the objection that they recognised only ram lal as a tenant and not the other two sub-tenants. in so far as the tenants are concerned, they took up the stand that the shop in question was leased to roshan .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 1980 (HC)

Jai Devi Vs. Bishan Dass

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-25-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H186

order1. facts giving rise to this petition under section 115 of the code of civil procedure are that the petition filed under section 13 of the hindu marriage act., 1955, by bishan dass against his wife jai devi, seeking dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce, was allowed by the district judge, faridkot on january 27, 1978.in this consent decree it was further agreed that bishan dass would pay monthly maintenance of rs. 100/- to jai devi till she re-marries, accordingly, the district judge exercising power under section 25 of the act passed on order. upon the failure of bishan dass to pay maintenance, jai devi took out execution.the objections raised by bishan dass gave rise to the following issues :--1. whether the pay of the judgment-debtor is not liable to attachment? 2. whether the order fixing maintenance, is illegal and without jurisdiction 2. the learned district judge decided issue, no. 1 in favour of jai devi and she was held entitled to 2 /3rd of the monthly basic salary of rs. 132/- of bishan dass. as issue no. 2 was decided in favour of bishan dass, her execution application was dismissed. hence this revision petition.3. learned counsel for the parties have addressed me only on the decision of the district judge on issue no. 2 a perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned district judge was influenced by the fact that jai devi did not make any application under section 25 of the act for grant of maintenance in her favour. thus he formed the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 1980 (HC)

Paradise Printers, Chandigarh and ors. Vs. the Union Territory, Chandi ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-25-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H30

gokal chand mital, j. 1. the printing press association of chandigarh moved the chandigarh administration for allotment of plots in industrial area to the printing press owners, on which applications were invited in the year 1968 by the chandigarh administration for allotment of industrial plots to such suitable industries as were recommended by the district industries officer. in response to the aforesaid, some of the writ, petitioners, as printing press owners, made application to the chandigarh administration for allotment of industrial plots of the sizes required by each of them.2. while the matter was still under consideration, in the year 1975, an advertisement was issued in the daily tribune, inviting application for allotment of industrial plots to the printing press owners, on prescribed forms, and it was provided therein that those who had already applied should apply afresh, but need not send earnest money if they had already deposited under the previous application. in pursuance of the aforesaid press-note, all the 21 petitioners before us, applied for allotment of plots in the prescribed forms, complete in all respects. according to the press-note, the plots were to be allotted at the rate of rs. 15/- per square yard.3. chandigarh administration carved out industrial plots, out of which 43 plots of bigger sizes were earmarked for printing presses and the remaining for other purposes, namely ice-cream industry, kerosene oil, dhabas and other alike purposes.the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 1980 (HC)

Food Corporation of India Vs. Baldev Kaur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-10-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H113

order1. the petitioner, food corporation of india, was proceeded against ex parte and an exparte decree was passed against it on april 9, 1973. the corporation applied for setting aside the ex parte decree on february 2, 1974. which was resisted by the respondents. it is not disputed that the corporation came to know about the ex parte decree on january 3, 1974 when summons for the execution of the above decree was received by it.2. the trial court framed the following three issues to decide the matter:(1) whether there are sufficient grounds for the setting aside of ex parte decree dated 9-4-1973? o. p. j. (2) whether the application has been filed by a competent person o. p. j (3) whether the application has been filed within limitation? 3. the trial court decided issue no. 1 in favour of the corporation but the remaining issues nos. 2 and 3 were decided against it. in consequence of the same, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed. an appeal was preferred by the corporation which was also dismissed by senior subordinate judge, and hence the present revision petition.4. a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the absence of any objection in regard to lack of jurisdiction of the two courts below, the present revision petition is incompetent as this court was not called upon to assess question of fact or law which may even have been decided wrongly. in this behalf, reference is made to d. l. f. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1980 (HC)

Gupta Steel Industries and ors. Vs. Balbir Kumar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-17-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H215

1. m/s. gupta steel industries and others, have through this regular second appeal. assailed the judgment and decree, passed by the additional district judge, jullundur, whereby he modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial court to the effect that the local commissioner, appointed to take accounts, was directed to take control and apply the assets of the firm. 2. brief facts of the case am that balbir kumar and ranjit kumar filed a suit against m/s. gupta steel industries and others for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts. their case was that the parties to the suit entered into a partnership on 22nd of may, 1970. the share of the plaintiffs was 44 per cent. the plaintiffs were minors and the business of the firm was being carried on by defendants 2 to 4. they alleged that these defendants had misappropriated the funds of the partnership business and had closed the factory. since the defendants had refused to render the accounts of the partnership business, a suit was filed against them. the trial court passed a preliminary decree and ordered that the partnership shall stand dissolved as from 2nd of may, 1978 and appointed mr. j. s. uppal, advocate as local commissioner to take the accounts. the plaintiffs were not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court and filed an appeal. the learned additional district judge, upheld the preliminary decree and modified it to the extent that the local commissioner shall take control and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 1980 (HC)

Manjit Singh Vs. State Bank of India

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-15-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H317

m.r. sharma, j. 1. the respondent filed a suit for recovery of some money against the petitioner. it appears that the respondent was allowed time to file replication on payment of costs. on the date when the replication was filed, the costs were not paid. the learned trial judge however accepted the replication and ordered that the costs be paid on the next date of hearing. this order passed by the learned subordinate judge has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that since the adjournment granted for filing the replication was conditional on payment of costs and the costs. had not been paid on the date when the replication was filed, the suit filed by the respondent should have been dismissed. in support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the language employed in s. 35b of the civil p. c. the relevant portion of which reads as under:-- '35b: costs for causing delay (1) if, on any date fixed for the hearing of a suit or for taking any step therein, a party to the suit- (a) fails to take the step which he was required by or under this 0 to take on that date, or (b) obtains an adjournment for taking such step or for producing evidence or on any other and the court ma for reasons to be recorded, make an other requiring such party to pay to the other party such costs as would in the opinion of the court, be reasonably sufficient to reimburse the other party in respect of the expenses incurred by him in attending the court on that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 1980 (HC)

Simpy Films No. 12, Jullundur Vs. Rajdhani Films (P) Ltd. and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-22-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H24

order1. the defendant-petitioners has filed this revision petition against the order of the trial court, dated 31st july, 1980, whereby his application under section 35b of the code of civil procedure, was dismissed.2. in civil revision no. 2425 of 1979, decided on 17th december, 1979, it was ordered that the plaintiff is allowed to produce the two documents on payment of rs. 300/- as costs. since the parties already directed to appeal before the trail court on 3rd december, 1979 in civil revision no. 1239 of 1979, the parties appeared before the trial court on that date, but as the record of the case which had been summoned by the high court, had not been received back in the trial court, the case was adjourned to 17th december 1979. on 17th december,1979, it appears that the defendant-petitioner m/s simpy films jullundur moved an application for amendment of issue and the case was adjourned to 19th january, 1980, for reply and arguments on that application. on 19th january,1980, the application for amendment issues was dispposed of and the case case was fixed for 15th march, 1980 for evidence of the plaintiff. the order of the trail court on that date, reproduced in the grounds for revision, reads thus:'for evidence of the plaintiff to come up on 15th march, 1980, the costs as ordered by the hon'ble high court has not been deposited or tendered or paid till today. it appears, meanwhile, the petitioner defendant moved an application under section 35b of the code of civil .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 1980 (HC)

Bhatia Brothers and anr. Vs. I.T.C. Limited and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-09-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H66

order1. this order will dispose of civil miscellaneous nos. 594/c-i and 595 /c-i of 1980 which contain the same question of law. the facts in the order are being given from c. m. no. 594/c-i of 1980.2. m/s i. t. c limited-respondent no. 1 instituted a suit for recovery of rupees 25 lakhs and oddagainst the petitioners and j. l. bhatia, respondent no. 2 in the court of sub-judge 1st class, ludhiana. the suit was decreed against the petitioners on the ground that mr. gordhan k. bhatia failed to appear in pursuance of the order of the court. the petitioners came up in appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court to this court which was accepted by me vide judgment dated january 29, 1980 and the case was remanded to the trial court for deciding the matter afresh after recording the statement of mr. bhatia. the petitioners have now filed an application under section 13 of the court fees. act (hereinafter referred to as the act) for issuing a certificate authorising them to receive back from the collector the full amount of court fee stamp paid on the memorandum of appeal.3. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case was remanded by this court under order 41 rule 23-a of the code of civil procedure 1908(hereinafter referred to as the code) for deciding the matter afresh. according to him, the petitioners are entitled to the refund of the court-fee under section 13 of the act as the case has been remanded by this court.4. i have given due .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 1980 (HC)

Maha Singh and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-08-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H86

order1. the revision petition is directed against the order of the executing court dated january 5,1976, by which he said court dismissed the application filed by the decree-holder with the allegation that the responders had disobeyed the decree. a perusal of the impugned order passed by the lower court shows that it has not applied it mind to the crucial piece of evidence, namely, the report of the local commissioner who was appointed to inspect the spot in order to determine whether the judgment-debtors had committed an encroachment on the disputed property or not. it is not disputed that the local commissioner submitted the report. exhibit lc/1 and also filed a plan showing the quantum of encroachment. the lower court has excluded this evidence by merely observing that the site plan prepared by the local commissioner was 'funny' as the same appeared to have been draw in a reverse direction. it is hardly a ground for rejecting the plan. if the lower court was not satisfied with the plan produced by the local commissioner to prepare a fresh plan and then examine the matter in the light of the new plan and the report of the local commissioner. in this situation the petitioner are quite justified to urge that the non-consideration of the report of the local commissioner has prejudiced their case.2. in view of the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order passed by the lower court is set aside. the case is sent back to the lower court with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1980 (HC)

Om Parkash Vs. Sarupa and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-01-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H157

order1. the defendant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the trial court dated september 27, 1980, whereby his application under order xiii rule 17a of the ode of civil procedure (hereinafter called the code), for permission to allow additional evidence was dismissed. 2. the litigation between the parties is pending for the last more than three years. in the litigation, one of the issues between the parties is; whether shri asa ram, deceased, executed a valid will in favour of defendant no. 2, om pal? if so, to what effect? the defendant--petitioner, in order to prove this document, examined the scribe of the will and also one of the attesting witnesses, jagdish chand, and then closed his evidence on september 7, 1979. on february 6, 1980, two application were moved on behalf of the petitioner. one related to the amendment of the written statement which was allowed against the plaintiff came up in revision to this court, which was ultimately dismissed. however, meanwhile, the proceedings in the trial court were got stayed by the plaintiffs in that revision petition. after the revision petition was dismissed by the high court the other application under order xviii rule 17a of the code, was dismissed by the trial court by the impugned order, dated september 27, 1980. in that application the petitioner had sought the permission of the court to produce jagdish chand an attesting witness of the will, on the point of attestation, as no such question .....

Tag this Judgment!


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