Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1980 Page 1 of about 68 results (0.058 seconds)

Dec 16 1980 (HC)

Rattan Singh Vs. D.R. Kapoor

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-16-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H153

s.p. goyal, j.1. this petition under section 15 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949(hereinafter referred to as the act), as applicable to the union territory of chandigarh, has been placed before us on a reference by r. n. mittal j., vide order dated may 9, 1980. 2. the vexatious question which has eluded authoritative pronouncement so long is as to whether the tenant of a residential building would become liable to ejectment under section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the act for using the said building for the purpose other than that for which it was leased, if after the commencement of the lease he adopts one of the professions mentioned in the schedule to the act his business. the admitted facts for his business. the admitted facts leading to this controversy are that the demised premises were let out to the respondent for residential purpose in the year 1971 when he was in the employment of the government as an engineer. some time after retirement, he was enrolled as an advocate and then he started using part of the demised premises for the purpose of his profession. thereupon the landlord filed this petition on january 6, 1978 for his ejectment on the ground that by setting up his office and using a part of the building for his profession, he has used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out and has thus become liable to ejectment. the tenant admitted that he was using the demised premises for his profession and for his residence but .....

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!

Nov 12 1980 (HC)

Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sant Ram and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-12-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H143

1. this appeal filed on behalf of the oriental fire and general insurance company ltd., arises out of a claim-petition in which as award out of a claim-petition in which a award of rupess 12,000/- has been given in favour of the claimants (respondent nos. 1 & 2) in equal shares against joginder singh, the owner of the truck and the insurance company both individually and collectively.2. the accident took place on 24th of january 1970, at about 8.30 a. m., in which joginder, who was coming to jullundur city from village khurla kingra on his cycle, was crushed due to rash and negligent driving of gurmail singh, driver of the truck no. pnq-207. at the time of the accident the owner of the truck was joginder singh, respondent no, 6. in the claim -application it was averred that the truck in question was insured and owned by girdhari lal respondent and that the same was insured with the oriental fire and general insurance company limited. this claim petition was contested on behalf of joginder singh the owner of the truck and its driver gurmail singh. in the written statement filed on behalf of the insurance company, preliminary objection was raised that the accident if any was due to the negligence and non-observance of the traffic rules, by the deceased for which the insurance company is not liable to pay any damages. it was also pleaded that the insurance company is also not liable to pay and damages as the vehicle was transferred to another persons and as such the vehicle was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 04 1980 (HC)

Rajindr Parkash Vs. Roshni Devi

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-04-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H212

1. this appeal arises out of an application under section 25 of the hindu marriage act, filed on behalf of the wife-respondent, for permanent alimony and maintenance,2. the facts, briefly stated, are that rajinder parkash appellant and roshni devi respondent were married in may, 1976, according to the hindu rites. on the application moved by rajinder parkash, a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties was granted on 29th of august, 2979. the divorce was granted on the ground of desertion. the application under section 25 of the hindu marriage act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the act) was filed on 19th of may. 1979 on the ground that she does not own any movable or immovable property and has no independent source of income. she further alleged that rajinder parkash owns about 10 killas of land and is getting a salary of rs. 400/- per month and is also receiving income of about rs. 500/- per month from the agricultural land. thus she claimed that she may be allowed a sum of rs. 200/- as permanent alimony. the petition was resisted by rajinder parkash appellant. it was told by him that shrimati roshni owns land has income from the land which is sufficient for her needs. he mentioned that he is getting a salary of rs. 300/- per mensem and he has to support his aged parents and a sister.3. on the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed :-1. to what amount of maintenance the petitioner is entitled to in proceedings under section 25 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1980 (HC)

Romesh Kumar and ors. Vs. the Municipal Committee, Gurdaspur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-03-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H295

..... that section 84(3) of the act barred the jurisdiction of the civil courts.8. in view of the aforesaid binding precedent it is not only unnecessary but would be patently wasteful to refer to earlier decisions of the high courts. nevertheless it becomes obligatory to notice the reliance buy the learned counsel for the appellant romesh kumar on the division ..... section by virtue of sub-clause 91) 9a) thereof. the appellate provision of section 84 and the bar of section 86 apply identically to all such proceedings. it is, therefore, patent that no distinction whatsoever can be drawn in the present case from the law as laid drawn in the present case from the law as laid down in munshi ram ..... respect of tax levied or assessment made under section 61. the case was ultimately carried by way of special leave to the supreme court. affirming the judgment of the letters patent bench, sarkaria, j., speaking for the bench, observed as follows:-'it is well-recognised that where a revenue statute provides for a person aggrieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular ..... on appeal the additional district judge reversed the judgment and decreed the suit. this in turn was affirmed in second appeal by the learned single judge but on a letters patent appeal having been preferred on behalf of the municipal committee, the division bench reversed the learned single judge's decision on the finding that sections 84 and 86 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1980 (HC)

Daljit Kumar and anr. Vs. Popal Dass

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-03-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H211

1. popal dass respondent filed a suit for the recovery of rs. 570/- against the petitioners on the basis of a pronote. the trial court granted a decree for rs 500/- in favour of the respondent being the principal amount, but declined the claim for interest and costs in view of the fact that the respondent who was admittedly a money lender had not sent any accounts to the petitioners before filing the suit. the appellate court, i.e. the additional district judge, sangrur, affirmed the decree of the trial court. the present revision petition has, therefore, been filed by the petitioners to challenge the decree passed in the suit. 2. the respondent has not chosen to appear in spite of service, nor is he represented by any counsel in fact, according to the report of the process serving agency, he refused to accept the summons. he is, therefore, presumed to have been served. the revision petition has been heard ex parte. 3. the sole point has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent having been admitted to be a money lender, he had a statutory duty under section 3 of the punjab registration of money lenders act, 1938 to produce the certificate of registration granted under the act which he never did. a consequence of this default is that his suit has to be dismissed as prescribed under section 3 of the act. this mandatory provision of law appears to have been ignored by both the courts below. if any authority is required on the point, the same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 1980 (HC)

Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Smt. Pushpa Chadha and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-10-1980

Reported in : [1984]55CompCas421(P& H)

1. this is an appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent filed by theharyana state electricity board against the judgment dated the 21st of february, 1980, passed by the learned single judge of this court. 2. the learned single judge allowed .....

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!

Oct 10 1980 (HC)

Mohinder Singh Sohal and anr. Vs. Ramesh Kumar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-10-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H199

1. this judgment will dispose of three appeals viz., f. a. o. nos. 169 and 170 of 1975 filed by the parents of deceased sukhwinder singh and gurbinder singh and f.a. o. no. 171 of 1975 filed by injured balwinder singh.2. three real brothers, namely, sukhwinder singh, gurbinder singh and balwinder singh were going on motor cycle no. dhm-2452 when a government jeep no. him-3633 coming from opposite direction and being driver rashly went out of control of the driver and came to the wrong side of the road and hit the motor cycle which was then being driven on its proper side. after the accident the driver of the jeep ran away, lieutenant gurbinder singh and sukhwinder sing died at the spot and balwinder singh sustained serious injuries.3. the parents of sukhwinder sing and gurbinder singh claimed compensation of rupees one lac in regard to the death of sukhwinder singh and rupees one lac on account of death of gurbinder singh, balwinder singh claimed rupees three lacs as compensation on account of the damage and monetary loss that he suffered as a result of the accident.4. the tribunal found that the jeep was driven rashly and on the wrong side of the road when the accident occurred; that the motor cycle was proceeding; on its right side at that time; that the jeep was driven by sh. ramesh kumar; and that sukhwinder singh who was driving the motor cycle contributed to the accident to the extent of 40% as he did not have driving license and carried on the motor cycle besides .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 1980 (HC)

Mahant Swaran Dass Vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee, Amrit ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-09-1980

Reported in : AIR1981P& H110

..... present case along with others was raised before the learned single judge hearing the matter on a difference of opinion under clause 26 of the letters patent. it was nowhere decided that a singly judge was not competent to hear the matter but apparently in view of the three objection raised and the ..... from the conflicting opinions of the learned judges composing the divisions bench.8. equally the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are patently distinguishable and provide no warrant for the proposition that on a difference of opinion in an appeal under s. 34 of the sikh gurdwaras act the ..... bench. therefore, the command of sub-sec (3) of section 34 of the act stands fully and amply complied with. the case, therefore, stands patently heard by a division bench of this court who have recorded their separate judgment. now what calls for notice is that clause 26 of the letters patnent ..... judgments separately have jointly recorded the following order:--'in view of our difference of opinion, and keeping in view the provisions of clause 26 of the letters patent, the case is sent to the hon'ble chief justice for referring the same to a third judge.'3. mr. t. s. mangat, the learned ..... of opinion betwixt the learned judges of the division bench hearing the same, cannot be referred to a third judge under cl 26 of the letters patent--is the point which has been raised at the very threshold in this case.2. for the limited purpose of determining the aforesaid question, it is .....

Tag this Judgment!


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