Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1972 Page 10 of about 183 results (0.050 seconds)

May 22 1972 (HC)

Shadi Lal Vs. Surinder Kumar and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-22-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H241

1. this is second appeal by shadi lal. it is directed against the judgment of shri ram lal aggarwal, district judge, jullundur dated december 22, 1961 upholding the judgment of shri gian chand jain, sub judge 1st class jullundur, dated january 30, 1961. dismissing the suit for pre-emption filed by the appellant.2. half share in house no. 226 situate in neel mohalla in the town of jullundur was sold by sansar chand respondent no. 1 in favour of surinder kumar respondent no. 2 on december 5, 1958. the appellant pre-empted that sale by filing suit for possession by pre-emption on february 29, 1960, inter alia, on the ground that he was a tenant of the house and had a right of pre-emption. in the written statement filed on behalf of surinder kumar vendee, the vendee denied that the appellant was a tenant and further pleaded that the property being urban immovable situate in the town of jullundur. proof of existence of custom for pre-emption was a condition precedent for exercise of right of pre-emption. the trial court framed several issues. under one of the issues it was held that the pre-emptor was a tenant. the findings of the trial court on that issue and on others were not contested before the lower appellate court. the only point, which was argued before the lower appellate court was that section 7 of the punjab pre-emption act, 1913 (hereinafter called the act), making it obligatory for a pre-emptor to prove the existence of custom, did not override section 16 of that act .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 1972 (HC)

Zila Parishad, Ambala Vs. Banarsi Dass Kapur

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-23-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H276

..... made which were not supportable by law because in such actions the relief could be granted on the ground that the money so collected was a trust fund. the letters patent appeal against this judgment was dismissed in limine. thus, so far as the court is concerned, the settled view is that article 62 of the limitation act cannot be invoked .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 24 1972 (HC)

Bhagat Singh Vs. Smt. Parkash Kaur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-24-1972

Reported in : 1973CriLJ719

..... land has risen proportionately, the respondents need more money to make both ends meet. while the necessity for a reasonable increase in the maintenance allowance awarded in 1956 is thus patent, the capacity of the petitioner to bear such increase is also undoubted. i cannot in these premises concur with learned counsel for the petitioner that the enhancement allowed by shri .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 1972 (HC)

Bachan Singh and ors. Vs. Harbans Kaur

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-25-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H103

order1. this application has been filed by harbans kaur, plaintiff-respondent, under section 152 of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the code') for rectification of the decree in regular second appeal no.1545 of 1970. the suit of the pre-emptor was decreed by the trial court. in the decree prepared by the trial court, rectangle no.3 was wrongly mentioned as rectangle no.10 and the area of killa no.17 of rectangle no.3 was wrongly mentioned as 3 kanals and 7 marlas instead of 7 kanals and 3 marlas. the same mistake was repeated in the decree of the additional district judge dated august 1, 1970, who affirmed the decree of the trial court and maintained the decree for pre-emption. this court also affirmed the decree for pre-emption the decree for pre-emption and the same mistake crept in, in the decree of this court. 2. the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the decree of the trial court as well as that of the first appellate court has merged into the decree of this court and this is the only court which can rectify the decree now. in support of his contention, he has relied on mst. jowala devi v. kanwar singh, 1896 punj re 32. in that case, some mistake crept in, in the decree of the district judge which was confirmed by the chief court. an application was subsequently made to the district judge for rectification of the decree. it was declined by him on the ground that it could be rectified by the chief court alone. the aggrieved party .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1972 (HC)

Birjee Vs. Pirthi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-26-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H289

gurdev singh, j.1. in this appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent the short question involved relates to interpretation of section 15(2)(a) of the punjab pre-emption act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the act).2. the property sought to .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1972 (HC)

Gobind Ram and anr. Vs. Rajphul Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-26-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H94

1. this appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the additional district judge, rohtak, by which a preliminary decree for redemption was passed by the subordinate judge, first class, rohtak, in favour of plaintiff-respondent no.1.2. briefly the facts of the case are that rajphul singh was the owner of the property in dispute which is comprised in shop no.426 and half share of shop no.427. he mortgaged the said property with gobind ram by means of registered mortgage deed dated march 27, 1959, for a consideration of rs.7,500/-. the mortgagee was given the actual possession of the northern portion of shop bearing no.426 which has been shown in the plan by letters 'abcd'. the actual physical possession of the remaining portion of shop no.426 could not be given as one chaman lal was a tenant in that shop under the plaintiff and similarly the possession of half portion of shop no.427 could not also be given as defendant no.5 raghu nath was a tenant therein. these tenants, however, attorned to the mortgagee. the relevant condition regarding redemption was that the plaintiff could redeem the property after one year and within a period of ten years from the date of registration. another relevant clause in the deed was that in case of redemption if the mortgagee could not deliver the actual physical possession of the northern portion of shop no.426, then he would be deemed to be a tenant in that shop on payment of a rent of rupees 16/- per mensem and the mortgagor's .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1972 (HC)

Sham Dass Vs. the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-26-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H50

order1. this order of mine would dispose of civil writs nos. 1636 and 1637 of 1965 as common question of law arises in both these petitions.2. the only point involved in these petitions relates to the valuation of the land sought to be purchased under section 18 of the punjab security of land tenures act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the act). the valuation of the land is to be determined under sub-section (2) of section 18 which reads as under:--'18(2). a tenant desirous of purchasing land under sub-section (1) shall make an application in writing to an assistant collector of first grade having jurisdiction over the land concerned and the assistant collector, after giving notice to the land-owner and to all other persons interested in the land and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, shall determined the value of the land which shall be the average of the prices obtaining for similar land in the locality during 10 years immediately preceding the date on which the application is made.'the assistant collector, first grade, allowed the purchase application of the petitioner-tenant and determined the value of the land at rs. 280.60 paise per bigha and the purchase price as rupees 210.40 paise per bigha, being 3/4th of the value of the land. this decision of the assistant collector was affirmed on appeal by the collector and a revision before the commissioner also failed. on a further revision by the land owners private respondents, the learned financial commissioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1972 (HC)

Gurdev Singh Vs. Punjab and Pepsu Finance Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-26-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H139

1. this is an appeal against an order of the subordinate judge, 1st class ambala, who on 19th march 1970, declined the application of the appellant to set aside an ex parte decree against him both on merits as well as on the ground that the application was barred by time.2. the decree-holder is punjab and pepsu finance company ltd., ambala cantt. referred to hereinafter as the company. gurdev singh is stated to have taken a truck on hire-purchase system which, for his alleged omission to pay instalments of the amount due from him, was seized by the company. in the hire-purchase agreement dated 21st october, 1960. exhibit dhw 3/1. it is provided that all differences arising between the parties in regard to rights, duties and obligations under the agreement shall be referred to the arbitration of shri brij bhushan gupta, advocate. ambala city who was to settle the same in accordance with the provisions as contained in the indian arbitration act (act 9 of 1899). first party to the agreement is the company and the second party is gurdev singh who is described as son of s. tara singh, resident of kothi no. 45-a, sector 22, chandigarh. the third party is the surety, sudagar singh, resident of manimajra, then within the district of ambala. the arbitrator issued a notice by registered post for 2nd february, 1964, to gurdev singh on the following address:--'gurdev singh s/o tara chand, resident of village ran singh wala. district bhatinda.'the notice was received back with a report of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1972 (HC)

Gian Singh Vs. S.P. Batra

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-26-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H400

m.r. sharma, j. 1. this first appellant arises out of the judgment and decree delivered by the senior subordinate judge, chandigarh, dated november 11, 1969. the facts giving rise to the controversy may briefly be stated as follows. 2. the respondent owned plot no. 57-d in sector 9-a, chandigarh, which he wasted to sell. it appears that he wrote letter to his friend r. n. chona in which it was mentioned that he intended to dispose of the above mentioned plot. shri r. n. chona contacted messrs. p. l. sahni and co. property dealers, at chandigarh, and discussed this matter with them. in the course of the discussion, the price of the plot was settled at rs. 7,500/- and the said property dealers handed over a crossed cheque for rs. 500/- as advance against the sale price of this plot to mr. chona for being forwarded to the respondent. mr. chona sent this cheque to the respondent along with his letter dated the 4th of march, 1960. some more letters were also exchanged between mr. chona and the respondent. the respondent wrote to messrs. p. l. sahni and co., property dealers, on march 16, 1960, wherein he stated, that he had paid a sum of rs. 6,862.25 as the price of the plot, that the dealers commission would be 2 per cent. only, that the costs involved in registration and transfer of plot will be paid by the purchaser, and that-'in view of the time and the money involved in coming over to chandigarh for the transaction it will be much appreciated that the transfer may be .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1972 (HC)

Harwant Kaur and ors. Vs. Harinam Sankirtan Mandal and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-26-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H99

order1. the petitioners are the tenants of the building in dispute owned by harinam sankirtan mandal. an application was filed by that mandal against the petitioners and firm hari singh bachan singh for ejectment from the said building on the ground that it was required for personal occupation for the purpose of a school run by the mandal and that the petitioners had sublet a portion of the building to firm hari singh bachan singh. a notice was issued to the petitioners to vacate the building but to no effect. the application was resisted by the petitioners and the following issues were framed by the rent controller:--(1) whether respondents 1 to 7 have sublet any part of the demised premises to respondent no.8? (2) whether respondent no.8 is in possession of the property, which is not part of the demised property as a direct tenant under the petitioner as alleged by him in his written statement? (3) whether the petitioner requires the premises in dispute for the purpose of running the school and as such for its personal use? (4) if issue no.3 is affirmed, whether the premises in dispute can be got vacated legally for the purpose of running the school? (5) whether the ejectment application has been filed by duly authorised person? if not, its effect ? (6) whether the tenancy in respect of premises in dispute of respondents nos.1 to 7 has been determined by service of valid notice to quit? if not, its effect? no decision was given by the learned rent controller on issue no.2 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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