Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1972 Page 1 of about 183 results (0.051 seconds)

Jan 03 1972 (HC)

State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Sarmukh Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-03-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H463

..... petition under article 226 for impleading him as a party to 'a's writ petition and re-hearing the whole matter, khosla, j. allowed this petition. on appeal, the letters patent bench also affirmed this order. the supreme court on further appeal held that there was nothing in article 226 to preclude a high court from exercising the powers of review ..... director passed on the 9th october, 1962, were quashed. against that order dated october 31, 1968, of the learned single judge, these two appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent have been jointly filed by the state of punjab and the consolidation authorities concerned.5. the main ground on which the judgment of the learned single judge proceeds is, that ..... 1. common questions of law and fact arise in letters patent appeals nos. 179 and 286 of 1969. they will, therefore, be conveniently disposed of by the common judgment.2. the land in question is out of killa nos. 16 and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1972 (HC)

Gurinderjit Singh Vs. Gurdip Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-04-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H322

1. on 9th june, 1967, nand singh is said to have executed a lease-deed, exhibit d-2/a, regarding land, measuring 150 kanals and 7 marlas, situate in village landeke, district ferozepur, in favour of gurdip singh for a period of 20 years beginning from 16th june, 1967. the lease money fixed was rs.1,800/- per year and this had to be paid by the lessee at the end of the year. the land revenue was to be paid by the lessor. there was a term in the deed that the lessor will not be able to evict the lessee before the expiry of the period of 20 years. it was further mentioned that some land out of 150 kanals 7 marlas, was under mortgage and the same would be redeemed by the lessor himself before 16th june, 1967. the possession of the land, which was free from mortgage, according to the deed, had been delivered to the lessee and as regards the mortgaged land, it was said that it would be given to the lessee immediately it was redeemed. this lease deed was, however, registered on 13th june, 1967, on which date the stamp duty for this document was also paid. on 13th june, 1967, vide exhibit d/3, nand singh sold the entire land covered by the lease-deed, exhibit d-2/a, to kanwaljit kaur and simran kaur, wife and daughter respectively of gurdip singh, lessee, for rs.66,165/-.kanwaljit kaur's share in the land was 3/4th, while that of simran kaur 1/4th. out of the sale price, rs.24,828/- were left with the vendees for payment to the previous mortgagees of the land and the remaining about .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1972 (HC)

Takan Ram and ors. Vs. NaraIn Das and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-04-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H477

1. this second appeal arises out of a suit for possession by redemption instituted by plaintiff-respondents. in the plaint the plaintiff-respondents averred that certain land (now left behind in pakistan) was mortgaged in the year 1920 by their predecessor-in-interest topan dass to megha ram predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-appellants and that after the partition of the country, the defendant-appellants have been allotted land in lieu of the said land. 2. the defendant-appellants contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. 3. the trial court dismissed the suit as being time-barred while the first appellate court taking contrary view on this point decreed the suit. hence this appeal at the instance of the defendant-appellants. 4. the only point argued and that arises for decision in this second appeal is as to whether the suit is within limitation. the plaintiff-respondents claim the suit within limitation on the strength of certain admissions contained in exhibits p-1 to p-6, p. 11, p-12 and p-15, which, according to them, constitute an acknowledgement in terms of section 19 of the limitation act, act no. ix of 1908, (hereinafter referred to as the act)--thereby extending the period of limitation for filing the suit for redemption. 5. exhibits p-1 to p-6 are the claim applications submitted in the year 1948 by the defendant-appellants for allotment of land in lieu of the land left behind in pakistan. therein they claimed to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1972 (HC)

Chandra Industries Vs. the Punjab State and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-05-1972

Reported in : [1972]29STC558(P& H)

1. this appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent against an order, dated 16th december, 1970, of the learned single judge dismissing civil writ no. 2655 of 1970, arises out of the following facts :-2 m/s. chandra industries .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1972 (HC)

Sewak Parshad Vs. Gram Panchayat Raipur Rani

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-05-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H272

1. this is a plaintiff's revision petition against an order passed by the trial judge allowing the defendant to amend the written statement. 2. a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the plaintiff cannot file this petition, because in the impugned order it had been stated that the proposed amendment was allowed subject to the payment of rs.20/- as conditional costs and the plaintiff had accepted the said costs and thereby precluded himself from challenging this order. 3. after hearing the counsel, i find that there is merit in the preliminary objection. this matter has been settled by a number of decisions both of this court and other high courts. a division bench of this court in prithvi singh azad v. ajaib singh sindhu, air 1965 punj 463, observed:-- 'where however, the amendment of election petition was allowed by the tribunal on payment of costs which were duly received by the respondent, the costs having been accepted, the amendment of the petition is no longer open to be challenged by him in appeal against dismissal of election petition'. 4. in ghulam qadar v. musammat fateh bano, 156 ind cas 342=(air 1934 lah 974). agha haidar, j. observed that when amendment had been allowed subject to payment of costs to the defendant, who accepted the amount, he could not turn round and attack the amendment. 5. a division bench of the nagpur high court in baliram narayan v. bapurao walalaji, air 1955 nag 222, took the same view and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1972 (HC)

Ram Sarup Bawa Vs. the State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-06-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H281

order1. the petitioner was elected as president, municipal committee, rampura phul, district bhatinda, and the proceedings of the meeting of april 6, 1970, in which the election took place, were quashed by the state government respondent by an order dated june 23, 1970, purported to have been passed under section 236 of the punjab municipal act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the act). civil writ no. 2309 of 1970 preferred by the petitioner was allowed by a division bench of this court and the notification annulling the said proceedings quashed. the state government has in exercise of powers conferred on it by the act. framed municipal election rules. 1952 (described hereinafter as the rules). election to any office in a municipal committee cannot be enjoined in rule 52 be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the rules. a petition in this behalf must contain a statement in concise form of the material facts on which the petitioner relies to challenge the election and there are then some other procedural formalities required to be complied with, like deposit of security etc. non-compliance with the rules could result in dismissal of the election petition. rule 59 requires that an enquiry shall be held in a place accessible to the public and that notice of the time and place of enquiry is given to the parties not less than seven days before the first day of the enquiry. the grounds for declaring election void are stated in rule 63 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1972 (HC)

Shanti Devi Vs. Ram Nath

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-06-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H270

order1. shrimati shanti devi was married to ram nath in 1962. in december 1967, a petition for the dissolution of this marriage under sections 12 and 13 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 hereinafter called the act, was made by the wife. the annulment of the marriage was claimed on the ground that the husband was impotent and also an idiot, and the ground for divorce was that he had been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition as given in section 13(1)(iii) of the act.2. the husband contested this petition and denied the allegations made by the wife.3. on the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed but the relevant issue, with which we are concerned in this revision petition, is issue no. 2, which says:--'whether the respondent (husband) has been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of this petition'.4. it may be stated that the counsel appearing for the wife did not press the grounds for the annulment of the marriage under section 12 of the act before me. so the only question to be determined was whether the husband had been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. the onus of proving this issue was obviously on the wife.5. in order to prove this issue, she examined dr. raj kumar, deputy medical .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1972 (HC)

Mewa Singh and ors. Vs. Brahma Nand and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-06-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H321

order1. this is a defendants' revision petition against the order passed by the lower appellate court permitting the plaintiffs to amend their plaint under the provisions of order 6, rule 17, code of civil procedure.2. a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are estopped from challenging the impugned order, because they had accepted the costs subject to the payment of which the amendment had been allowed. the learned additional district judge had permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint subject to the payment of rs.100/- as costs to the defendants. the costs were paid to the petitioners and accepted by them, and, therefore, they, according to the counsel for the respondents, could not question the said order.3. after hearing the counsel, i find that there is merit in this objection. it has been laid down in a number of authorities that after the acceptance of the costs without protest, a party is estopped from challenging the order. reference in this connection may be made to a ruling by bhide j. in sohan lal v. dhari mal ishar das, air 1928 lah 813(2), where it was observed:'a party who has adopted an order of the court and acted under it cannot after he has enjoyed a benefit under the order contend that it is valid for one purpose and invalid for another. defendants resisted the suit for rendition of accounts filed by the plaintiffs, pleading inter alia that no suit for accounts was maintainable on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1972 (HC)

Didar Singh Vs. Sarbjit Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-06-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H319

order1. didar singh filed a suit for possession of some agricultural land against sarbjit singh and his mother ravel kaur. in the plaint, sarbjit singh was described as son of ravel kaur wife of gurpal singh and ravel kaur as wife of gurpal singh. the case of the defendants, however, was that ravel kaur was the wife of didar singh, plaintiff, and sarbjit singh was his son through her.2. after trial, the suit was decreed on 26th november, 1970. towards the close of the judgment, the learned subordinate judge observed as under:--'before parting with this judgment, i would also deal with the application under section 479-a, criminal procedure code moved by the defendants against the plaintiff. it was stated that the plaintiff had given false evidence that the defendants were not his son and wife respectively, although he had been previously admitting their relationship with him. it is true that the plaintiff in his statement as p.w. 2 denied that defendant no. 1 is his son and defendant no. 2 is his wife. the question is can it be said that he had committed perjury. the question of relationship of the plaintiff with the defendant was not directly in issue. at the same time there can be no doubt that the relationship of the defendants with the plaintiff was a relevant fact so as to arrive at the correct conclusion on issue no. 1. the defendants' case was that the suit land had been given to them by the plaintiff by way of maintenance as they bore special relationship with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1972 (HC)

Chanchal Kumari Vs. Kewal Krishan

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-06-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H474

1. this is a wife's appeal against the order of the district judge, amritsar, whereby her petition under section 12(1)(a) of the hindu marriage act for annulment of her marriage with the respondent, kewal krishan, was dismissed. chanchal kumari appellant and kewal krishan respondent were married on 9th october, 1965. the present petition for the annulment of the marriage on the ground that the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so till the institution of the proceedings, was filed on 31st december, 1965. in the petition it was alleged that though after the marriage the parties lived together on two occasions there was no consummation of marriage as the respondent was impotent and incapable of performing sexual intercourse. the petition was contested by the husband who pleaded that there had been consummation of the marriage and that the parties had been living together happily. the allegation of impotency was denied. it was, however, added that inability to produce children could not be termed as impotency. the pleadings of the parties and their statements, which were recorded before the framing of the issues, gave rise to the following issue :--whether the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so until the institution of these proceedings?2. on a consideration of the evidence led by the parties the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the respondent had a normal male organ and had been having .....

Tag this Judgment!


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