Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2001 Page 4 of about 52 results (0.052 seconds)

Oct 31 2001 (HC)

Smt. Veena Rani Vs. Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-31-2001

Reported in : 2003ACJ1586

mehtab s. gill, j. 1. c.m. no.8374 of 1999. delay of 24 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned and the c.m. is allowed. r.s.a.no.4750 of 1999. this judgment will dispose of two appeals viz r.s.a. no.4750 of 1999 and rsa no.4751 of 1999 as the facts are common and these pertain to the same occurrence dt. 25.3.1988. 2. the appellants smt. veena rani filed a suit for the recovery of rs.2 lac from the respondents. she stated in the plaint that on her visit to abohar in connection with some marriage when she was passing through johri mandi road, abohar, she fell into an un-covered man-hole and suffered serious injuries on her left leg and foot. due to these injuries, she was admitted in the hospital and was treated by dr. kulwant raki ahuja of abohar and, thereafter, shifted to gupta hospital bhatinda. ultimately, her left leg had to be amputated due to the injuries suffered by her. the appellant at that time gave birth to a pre-mature male baby on 27.4.1988, who died after two days of that delivery. she went through a lot of pains and sufferings. she also lost one of her left leg and male child due to negligence on the part of the respondents. she stated further that she was 22 years of age and her husband is not earning much and she was helping her husband in the livelihood and her normal life was disturbed. 3. i have heard id. counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record carefully. 4. ld. counsel for the appellant has stated that it was the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 2001 (HC)

Kulwinder Kaur Vs. Jagdish Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-08-2001

Reported in : II(2001)DMC514

r.l. anand, j.1. kulwinder kaur and her two children ramandeep kaur and hardip singh have filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judg-ment and decree dated 22.1.2000 passed by the learned additional district judge, rupnagar, who allowed the petition under section 13 of the hindu marriage act filed by jagdish singh, husband of kulwinder kaur on the ground of desertion and cruelty. i may also make a mention here, first, that in the trial court, the children were not made parties to the proceedings, but this ap-peal has been fifed on their behalf through their mother kulwinder kaur. perhaps for the reason that since they are the children to the parties of marriage, they are likely to be affected by the judgment and decree. be that as it may, 1 am of the opinion that ramandeep kaur and hardip singh have no locus standi to file the present appeal.2. it may also be mentioned here that jagdish singh filed apetition under section 13 of the hindu marriage act against his wife kulwinder kaur on the ground of desertion and cruelty and on the ground that she was seen in the company of tarsem lal-respondent no. 2 many times. therefore, it should be inferred that kulwinder kaur was living in adultery with tarsem lal who was impleaded as respondent no. 2 in the trial court. the trial court decided issue no. 1 against the husband and issues nos. 2 and 3 were decided in his favour. resultantly, decree of divorce was granted on the ground of desertion and cruelty.3. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 2001 (HC)

income-tax Officer Vs. Chiranjilal Cotton Industries and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-24-2001

Reported in : [2002]254ITR181(P& H)

jawahar lal gupta, j. 1. a complaint under section 276c(2) read with section 278b of the income-tax act, 1961, was filed against the firm and its six partners. it was, inter alia, alleged that the accused had not paid the amount of tax as assessed. thus, they had wilfully evaded the payment of tax. consequently, they were liable to be punished. 2. the trial court after examination of the evidence has found that in respect of the assessment year 1989-90, the assessing officer had found that the assessee was liable to pay an amount of rs. 47,376. on appeal, the liability was reduced vide order dated november 29, 1991, to rs. 38,756. it has been further noticed that shri sham singh, income-tax officer, had appeared as pw 1. he had admitted that an amount of rs. 10,000 had been deposited by the assessee on march 27, 1991. rs. 14,000 were deposited on march 30, 1991. on december 17, 1991, the revenue had adjusted an amount of rs. 6,154 which was due by way of refund to the assessee for the assessment year 1991-92. an amount of rs. 1,000 was deposited on march 6, 1992. a sum of rs. 1,488 was deposited on march 7, 1992, and rs. 2,000 were deposited on march 24, 1992. besides all this, it is also admitted that an amount of rs. 4,114.30, which was lying in the account of the assessee in the punjab national bank, kotkapura, was attached on december 26, 1991. thus, full payment was made by march 24, 1992. 3. mr. sawhney contends that there was a wilful evasion of tax by the accused.is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 22 2001 (HC)

income-tax Officer Vs. Mukesh Kumar

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-22-2001

Reported in : [2002]254ITR409(P& H)

1.the income-tax officer, jalandhar, filed a complaint under section 276cc of the income-tax act, 1961, against the respondent. the cheif judicial magistrate after examination of the evidence has found that 'the complainant has utterly failed to prove on file that the notice exhibit p-3 under section 148 of the income-tax act was ever served... upon the accused'. thus, the assessee was acquitted of the charge. aggrieved by the order, the revenue has filed this petition for the grant of leave to appeal.2. mr. sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the departmental authorities had held the respondent-assessee guilty of delay in filing the return. a penalty had been imposed. the order had attained finality. thus, the court could not have gone into the question of service of the notice.3. a perusal of the order passed by the chief judicial magistrate, jalandhar, shows that the complaint had been filed in respect of the assessment year 3976-77. the assessee had initially filed his return on august 28, 1976. he had not mentioned the income from the house property. proceedings under section 147 were initiated against him. a notice under section 148 of the act was allegedly sent to him on march 22, 1980. the assessee had filed a return on december 15, 1980. even in this return he had declared a net loss of rs. 20,930. it is in this situation that it was alleged that there was a delay of seven months in filing the return after the service of the notice under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2001 (HC)

Mam Kaur Vs. Ram Sarup

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-01-2001

Reported in : II(2001)DMC255

orderr.l. anand, j.1. smt. mam kaur, appellant (wife) has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.3.1998 passed by addl. district judge, kumkshetra, who dismissed her petition under section 13 of the hindu marriage act (hereinafter referred 10 as 'the act')2. in her petition under section 13 of the act smt. mam kaur sought a decree of divorce by inter alia alleging that her marriage with respondent no. 1 was performed in march, 1985 according to hindu rites and ceremonies in village bargat tehsil thanesar, district kurukshetra. out of this wedlock no child was bom. according to the petitioner, respondent no. 1 is a greedy person and he wanted to usurp the land owned by her and her mother and that he had been beating them. he even tried to administer poison to the petitioner. it is further averred by the petitioner/appellant that respondent no. 1 has contracted second marriage with respondent no. 2, parveen, who is being kept by respondent no. 1, in his house as wife and out of this illegal wedlock a female child namely pooja was born on 5.9.1994. so much so, respondent no. 2 is again pregnant from the loins of respondent no. 1, and in this manner the respondent no. 1 is living in adultery with respondent no. 1 and on this ground also she is entitled to a decree of divorce. it is also the case of the petitioner that since respondent no. 1 is living in adultery with respondent no. 2, therefore, respondent no. 1 has committed an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 2001 (HC)

Tarsem Singh and ors. Vs. Smt. Parkash Kaur

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-21-2001

Reported in : AIR2002P& H258

m.l. singhal, j.1. smt. parkash kaur filed suit for permanent injunction against tarsem singh and sardul singh restraining them from making any addition or alteration or re-construction or changing the nature of the property abcd as shown in the plan attached to the plaint as detailed in the heading of the plaint situated at dhangu road, pathankot illegally, forcibly and without due course of law, on the allegations that the allegations that the property in suit was owned and possessed by ajit singh son of wadhawa singh who had purchased it from the managing officer, jalandhar vide deed of conveyance dated 3.3.97 registered on 5.5.67. after the death of ajit singh, his estate was inherited by his sons narinder singh, gurmit singh and harjinder singh daughter smt. balwinder kaur and widow smt. parkash kaur. smt. parkash kaur plaintiff thus inherited 1/5th share in the property in suit. plaintiff and other heirs of ajit singh filed civil suit no. 88 of 1987 against dalip singh father of the defendants in respect of the property in suit in the court of additional senior subordinate judge, pathankot along with other properties which was decreed on 3.6.1988. besides the property in suit, ajit singh had left properties situated at village ugrewal. batala, pathankot etc. said dalip singh in a fraudulent manner in collusion and conspiracy with arbitrator without any proper authorisation and without delegating the powers to the arbitrator obtained illegal award on 2.9.95. said award .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 2001 (HC)

Subhash Chander Vs. Veeranwali

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-20-2001

Reported in : II(2002)DMC138

adarsh kumar goel, j. 1. this appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband against the dismissal of a divorce petition filed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.2. before commencement of the hearing, i asked the parties, who were present in court, whether reconciliation was possible and while the respondent-wife was willing to return to the matrimonial home, the husband was not agreeable.marriage between the parties took place on 15.8.1982. a son was born out of this wedlock who is living with the respondent-wife. the husband filed a divorce petition on 29.9.1994 alleging, inter alia, that the wife had wrongly represented that she was 29/30 years at the time of marriage white in fact, she was 38-39 years that time; the husband filed a petition for annulment of marriage but he withdrew the same on the intervention of the respectable; the wife dragged the husband into constant litigation and filed a petition 125 of the code of criminal procedure on 19.4.1984; she filed a complaint under section 406 of the indian penal code; she filed a petition before the district magistrate for permission to prosecute the-husband and his family members; she got the husband detained in a false complaint for the whole night, she made complaints to the higher authorities; the husband was called by the police on a complaint of the wife; the husband had to shift his house on account of harassment by the wife as she was unable to pull on with the husband as well as the neighbours, the wife .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 2001 (HC)

Gurcharan Singh Vs. Mukhtiar Kaur

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-18-2001

Reported in : I(2002)DMC747

adarsh kumar goel, j. 1. this appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the district judge, bathinda, dismissing the petition for divorce filed by the appellant-husband.2. marriage between the parties took place in july, 1970, and one daughter named sukhwinder kaur was born out of the wedlock who is living with the respondent-wife. though the respondent-wife gave birth to 3 other children i.e. 2 sons, and one daughter but they died soon after the birth. the appellant-husband filed a petition in question on 31.10.1990 alleging that the respondent-wife was a quarrelsome lady and was not adjusting in the matrimonial home and finally deserted the appellant-husband 6 years before the filing of the petition. the respondent-wife contested the petition and stated that she was turned out of the house after being treated with cruelty by the appellant-husband. the trial court dismissed the petition. aggrieved thereby, the appellant-husband has filed this appeal.3. after admission of the appeal the matter was referred to lok adalat under section 20 of the legal services authorities act, 1987 but finding that there was no possibility of compromise, the lok adalat had referred the matter back for decision on merits.the trial court framed the following issues:-1. whether the respondent is guilty of cruelty towards the petitioner as alleged in paras 4 and 5 of the petition? opd 2. whether the respondent has not complied with the decree under section 9 of the hindu marriage act for a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 22 2001 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suresh Kumar Bansal and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-22-2001

Reported in : [2002]254ITR130(P& H)

jawahar lal gupta, j.1. the revenue has filed these nine petitions under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961. these relate to the imposition of penalty against the respondent-assessee for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1987-88. the revenue maintains that the following question of law arises in i. t. c. nos. 35 to 38 of 1998 and that the tribunal should be directed to refer it to this court for its opinion :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the learned commissioner of income-tax (appeals) who cancelled the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act by the assessing officer ?'2. the admitted facts are that the assessments in respect of different years had been completed under section 143(3) of the act of 1961. thereafter, the premises of the assessee were raided in july, 1987. the assessments were reopened. fresh orders of assessment were passed. penalty proceedings were initiated. in respect of the four years in question, penalties amounting to rs. 2,470, rs. 3,962, rs. 19,830 and rs. 37,568 were imposed. aggrieved by the orders of penalty the assessee filed appeals. the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) found that the assessee had surrendered certain amounts, subsequent to the discussions with the officers and subject to no penalty. it was further found that 'the assessing officer has not pointed out any specific items of concealment in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2001 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ghansham Dass

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-04-2001

Reported in : [2002]254ITR355(P& H)

jawahar lal gupta, j.1. is the partner in a firm entitled to standard deduction under section 16(i) of the income-tax act, 1961, against the salary drawn by him this is the short question that arises for consideration in this case. a few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.2. the assessee is a partner in a firm. he filed his returns for the assessment years from 1978-79 to 1980-81. besides the share in the profits, he had also drawn salary from the firm. in respect of salary, a claim for deduction under section 16(i) was made. this claim was accepted by the income-tax officer.3. however, on july 14, 1983, the assessing officer passed an order under section 154 and disallowed the claim for deduction. the assessee filed an appeal. it was dismissed. he approached the tribunal. the assessee having succeeded, the revenue filed three petitions under section 256(1). these petitions were accepted. the tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to standard deduction under section 16(i) of the income-tax act, 1961, against the salary income from the firm in which he is a partner in each of the accounting periods relevant to the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 ?'4. mr. r. p. sawhney, learned counsel for the revenue, contended that the tribunal had erred in accepting the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 16 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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