Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1972 Page 4 of about 183 results (0.043 seconds)

Feb 16 1972 (HC)

Fatta Juglal Harijan Vs. Karta Budhu and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-16-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H299

order1. fatta, a harijan of village kurana, district karnal, brought a suit against karta and six others for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his exclusive right to the use of the carcasses of animals that die in the jurisdiction of the gram panchayat of this village. his allegations were that the gram panchayat had given the contract of removing these carcasses for a period of two years (from 24th march, 1970 to 23rd march, 1972) to him and he paid rupees 4000/- for that purpose. previously, this job of collecting all the carcasses of animals was entrusted to karta, defendant, alone. alongwith the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under o. 39, rules 1 and 2, code of civil procedure, for issuing a temporary injunction to the defendants restraining them from collecting the carcasses of dead animals from the area of the gram panchayat of this village.2. this application was rejected by the trial court mainly on the ground that the plaintiff had not been able to show a prima facie case in his favour. according to the learned judge, the gram panchayat had no authority to create a lease of this kind in favour of the plaintiff.3. against the dismissal of his application, the plaintiff went in appeal before the learned senior subordinate judge, karnal. he affirmed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. the plaintiff has come here in revision against that order.4. the only point to be determined is whether or not the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 1972 (HC)

Rabi Ram and anr. Vs. Dalip Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-02-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H390

..... the decision of mr. justice dua, though erroneous on the question of jurisdiction, would operate as res judicata in as much as that decision had become final and no letters patent appeal had been preferred.8. the short question that arises for determination is whether a decision on a question of jurisdiction can operate as res judicata. there are two types .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 1972 (HC)

Chiranjit Lal Vs. NaraIn Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-02-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H432

1. on 1st april, 1964, by a document, exhibit p-1, chiranji lal gave his shop, which was situate in bhadson, district patiala, on a monthly rent of rs.30 to narain singh for one year. the shop was not vacated by the tenant though according to the owner, he was orally asking him to do so. chiranji lal, however, continued accepting rent from the tenant. on 28th december, 1966, chiranji lal gave a notice, exhibit d-15, to the tenant asking him to vacate the shop within two weeks. this notice was received by the tenant on 30th december, 1966. in january, 1967, a suit was filed by chiranji lal against narain singh for possession of the said shop on the ground that he had rented out the premises to the defendant for one year and the latter was not prepared to vacate the same, in spite of a notice having been issued to him in that behalf. 2. the suit was contested by the defendant, who pleaded that the rent settled was rs.24 and not rs.30 per mensem as alleged by the plaintiff. the notice according to the defendant, was invalid, because it was neither for the requisite period of 15 days nor did it expire with the end of the month of tenancy. it was also averred that the tenancy was renewed after the efflux of time and it then became a monthly tenancy. 3. the trial judge decreed the suit, holding that the rent of the shop was rs.30 per month, that the notice dated 28th december, 1966, was valid and that the tenancy had been renewed after the efflux of time and thereafter it became a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 1972 (HC)

Khushi Ram Vs. Ram Chand

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-02-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H303

order1. on 6th october, 1969, ram chand brought a suit for the recovery of rs.6129.70 against khushi ram on the basis of a writing in the bahi. the defendant filed his written statement on 5th february, 1970, in which he denied the said claim. the case was then tried and, ultimately, when the stage of arguments came, the defendant moved an application on 26th november, 1971, for the amendment of his written statement. by the said amendment, he wanted to claim a set off rs. 2158.42 from the plaintiff on account of the goods supplied to firm kundan lal ram chand. this ram chand, according to the defendant was the plaintiff and he had also stood as surety for the payment of the said amount.2. this application was contested by the plaintiff and then rejected by the trial judge by means of his order dated 6th december, 1971. against this, the present revision petition has been filed by the defendant.3. the trial judge, in the impugned order had given a number of reasons for rejecting the defendant's application. one of them being, that he was not satisfied with the reason giving by the defendant for making that application at such a belated stage. the defendant had mentioned that he was ill and could not fully instruct his counsel, when the latter filed the written statement on his behalf. while rejecting this reason, the learned judge observed that it could not be believed that the plea of set-off could not be taken because the defendant was ill and, therefore, could not properly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1972 (HC)

Shriomani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar Vs. Mahant Isher Sin ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-03-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H389

order1. this is an application under article 133 of the constitution of india for leave to appeal to the supreme court against our judgment dated 15th october, 1970 in f. a. o. 82 of 1963.2. mr. t. s. mangat, learned counsel for the respondent, has raised the preliminary objection that the application is barred by limitation. he also contends that the application is not in accordance with law.3. our judgment against which leave is sought was rendered on 15th october, 1970. the period of limitation fixed for an application for leave to appeal to the supreme court is 60 days under article 132 of the limitation act, 1963. this period of 60 days expired on 14th december, 1970. in addition to this period, the petitioner is entitled to the time spent in obtaining copy of the judgment appealed against, i.e., our judgment. it is common ground that he is entitled to 7 days on this count. thus, the application could have been lodges in this court on or before 21st december, 1970. in fact the application was filed on 17th december, 1970. but it lacked in two material particulars, (1) that the grounds of appeal as required by o. 45, r. 3, code of civil procedure were not filed along with it, and (2) the value of the subject-matter in dispute at the date of the dispute in the court of first instance was not mentioned. the office returned the application on 18th december, 1970 with the direction that it should be refiled within a week. it was pointed out in the office objection that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 1972 (HC)

Kartar Singh Vs. Lal Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-07-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H385

1. these three letters patent appeals (l. p. as 157 and 187 of 1970, and l. p. a. 582 of 1971) arise out of the decision of two different writ petitions by a learned single .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 1972 (HC)

Santa Singh Vs. Basanta Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-07-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H30

1. this order will dispose of r.s.as nos. 560 and 561 of 1969. there is no merit in either of these appeals and both must fail. as the points of law and some facts are common to both these appeals, i have thought it proper to decide both of them by common judgment.2. an area of land measuring 110 kanals and 10 marlas was taken on lease by sobha singh, basant singh and santa singh. the lease was for a period of 99 years and is described as a patta for that period. it commenced in kharif 1962 and was to end in rabi 2062. it was for a fixed consideration amounting to rs. 3,000/-.sobha singh died and on his death his share was inherited by his two sons and his widow, that is, santa singh, basant singh and mst. jind kaur in equal shares. on june 8, 1966, basant singh sold his share which is equal to 4/9th share of the land detailed in paragraph 1 of the plaint with ancillary rights in tube well etc., to bawa singh and others, defendants nos. 2 to 6 for a sum of rs. 6,000/-.3. on the 16th of june, 1966, mst. jind kaur solder her 1/9th share of the agricultural land detailed in paragraph 1 of the plaint in suits nos. 148/787 of 1966 to defendants nos. 2 to 5 for rs. 1,500/-. santa singh being a co-sharer in the lease hold rights acquired by his father and brother brought the two suits to pre-empt these two sales on the ground that the land in dispute had been sold and he being a co-sharer in khata was entitled to pre-empt the same under section 15(1) of the punjab pre-emption act. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1972 (HC)

State of Punjab Vs. S. Bhagwant Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-08-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H41

1. the respondent bhagwant singh while serving at nazim in the state of patiala was dismissed from service by an order of the administrative committee appointed by the ruler of that state, on 2nd april, 1927. the order further directed that his whole of self-acquired and half of ancestral property shall be confiscated. reproduced in extenso it reads:'sardar bhagwant singh, ex-nazim sunam who has been under suspension pending enquiry into his conduct is hereby dismissed from service with effect from the date of suspension. the property acquired by him personally also half of his ancestral property shall be confiscated to the state and sardar khazan singh suri is appointed official receiver for the purposes.'2. it appears that bhagwant singh waited for quite some time and it was only on the 31st of august, 1938, that for the first time he made a representation to the ruler but without success. this representations was disposed of by recording this order:'no need. file (ex. d. w. 3/a)'.3. the second representation (ex. d.2) dated 1st july, 1942, met the same fate and in the order dated 23rd of september, 1942, recorded thereon the ruler refused to entertain it, saying:'i cannot take the case up now. there is no need of putting up to me again.'4. despite the refusal of the maharaja to interfere, bhagwant singh submitted yet another representation on 22nd of september, 1944, in which he reiterated his prayer that he be reinstated and the property which had been confiscated be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1972 (HC)

Amar Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Rakha

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-08-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H383

order1. this revision petition has been filed by a tenant whose ejectment has been ordered both by the appellate authority as well as the rent controller.2. the main ground of ejectment, with which we are concerned in this petition, is that the shop in dispute, which has been given on rent, was closed for the last 17 months and, consequently, the tenant was liable to ejectment under section 13(2)(v) of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, hereinafter called the act, which says:(2) 'a landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the controller for a direction in that behalf. if the controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied--x x x x x x (v) that where the building is situated in a place other than a hill station, the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause, the controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and if the controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application:x x x'.3. the tenant's position was that he was a carpenter and had throughout been using the shop for doing his work. this plea, after appraisal of the evidence produced by the parties, was rejected both by the rent controller and the appellate authority. in this revision petition a new ground for the first time has been taken that the tenant is not liable to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1972 (HC)

Balwant Singh Vs. Gram Sabha, Behrampur Bet and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-08-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H309

order1. balbir singh and 7 others, residents of village behrampur bet, district ropar, brought a suit against the gram sabha of the village through ajmer singh, sarpanch of the gram panchayat of the said village. karam singh, ram bux and jaimal, defendants nos. 1 to 4, for possession of agricultural land, measuring 111 kanals and 14 marlas, situate in the same village by ejecting defendants nos. 2 to 4. their case was that the said land, was not shamilat deh and as such, did not vest in the gram panchayat. it belonged to the proprietors of the village and the defendants had taken forcible possession thereof on the ground that it had been given to them by defendant no. 1.2. the suit was contested by defendants nos. 2 to 4, who pleaded that the said land was shamilat deh and vested in the gram panchayat, which gave the same to them on lease. ajmer singh, sarpanch, however, admitted the claim of the plaintiffs on behalf of defendant no. 1, because according to him, the land belonged to the proprietary body of the village.3. during the pendency of the suit, an application was moved under order 1, rule 10, code of civil procedure, by arjan singh and 4 others, who alleged themselves to be the panches of the gram panchayat, behrampur bet, for being added as parties to the suit. their case was that the sarpanch was one of the proprietors of the village and, therefore, his interests were identical with those of the plaintiffs and it was because of that reason that he had admitted .....

Tag this Judgment!


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