Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H9
..... order of bishan narain j. passed in a petition under article 226 of the constitution praying that the estate be released from the court of wards on the ground that section 5(2)(a) of the pepsu court of wards act (no. 1 of 2008 bk.) is ultra vires the constitution of india. this appeal came up before me while sitting with the chief justice on the 13th ..... was to govern. it is not necessary to notice the various provisions of the patiala court of wards act, 2000 bk. because, as i have already said, they are identical with the provisions of the pepsu act. both the acts relate to the same subject. the pepsu act by section 2 repealed the patiala act, 2000 bk., and provided :'provided that all rules and appointments made, notifications and orders issued, ..... pursuance of an order of the jind state government. in 1948 the jind state became a part of pepsu and the court of wards continued to function, presumably under the pepsu court of wards act. in 1956 the two states of pepsu and punjab were merged together and the court of wards came under the control of the punjab state. on the 3rd of october, 1956, the appellant filed ..... hostile, discriminatory, and with bad motive on, amongst others, the following grounds. in the grounds, all possible objections were raised including the objection as to the vires of the pepsu court of wards act and in the end the following prayers were made :'1. that the petitioner and respondent no. 3 being co-widows and owners in equal share of the property there is .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978AP354
..... could not be held that by necessary implication the panchayat board's remedy to recover the amount in a civil court was ousted. 35. in the pepsu case ( kartar singh v. pritam singh, air 1956 pepsu 78) under the pepsu panchayat raj act ( 8 of 2008 bk ) it was the adalat class i that could entertain civil suits where the valuation did not exceed rs. 500 but ..... the suit was filed by the plaintiffs therein in the court of the subordinate judge 2nd class, for recovery of a sum of rs. 450, and ..... the jurisdiction of the subordinate judge's court was barred by the provisions of the pepsu panchayat raj act and whether the decree passed by the subordinate judge's court was a nullity. the learned judge held that although the panchayat court were given jurisdiction in certain suits by the pepsu panchayat raj act, the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts in such suits was not excluded or ..... taken away, that both courts had concurrent jurisdiction in such .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)MPHT99
..... that since the investigations are being carried out pursuant to the firs already lodged and the one man commission of inquiry under the commissions of inquiry act, 1952 has been appointed by the state government, the court should not direct an investigation by the cbi.13. mr. dharmendra sharma, learned counsel appearing for the nca, submitted that no relief whatsoever has been ..... representatives of the petitioner organisation and considering that 686 fake registrations have been alleged under the srp, the state government has by notification dated 18-7-2008 issued under section 3 of the commissions of inquiry act, 1952, appointed shri n.c. nagraj, a retired district & sessions judge as a single man commission of inquiry, to make an inquiry into the allegations ..... court in the first and second narmada bachao's cases (supra), the supreme court has held that rehabilitation and resettlement of oustees of the sardar sarovar project is part ..... the state government and for information of the houses of the state legislature. hence, the high court will have virtually no role to play on the report of the one-man commission appointed by the state government under section 3 of the 1952 act by the notification dated 18-7-2008 if and when submitted.21. by the two judgments of the supreme .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
..... prior sanction. even if sanction were sought, the complaint would fall foul of the above requirement, on the basis of which the sanctioning authority acts. therefore, the court having directed an investigation by the police is the proper course of action as it is only then material would be made available, either to ..... complaint filed in terms section 156(3) or section 200 crpc, the magistrate is required to apply his mind. (see: maksud saiyed v. state of gujurat, (2008) 5 scc 668 and pepsi foods ltd. v. special judicial magistrate, (1998) 5 scc 749.) when a magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound ..... 197 of the code is a condition precedent for launching the prosecution is equally fallacious. this court has stated the legal position in s.r. munnipalli v. bombay (1955 (1) scr 1177) and in amrik singh v. state pepsu (1955 rd-sc 9) that it is not every offence committed by a public servant ..... , which requires sanction for prosecution under section 197 of the code, nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his ..... section 190 crpc, it is held thus: the other contention of the learned attorney general is than in taking cognizance under the p.c. act the court is guided by the provisions under section 190 of the code and in support of that contention the learned attorney general relied on several judgments. however .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
..... prior sanction. even if sanction were sought, the complaint would fall foul of the above requirement, on the basis of which the sanctioning authority acts. therefore, the court having directed an investigation by the police is the proper course of action as it is only then material would be made available, either ..... filed in terms section 156(3) or section 200 crpc, the magistrate is required to apply his mind. (see : maksud saiyed v. state of gujurat, (2008) 5 scc668and pepsi foods ltd.v. special judicial magistrate , (1998) 5 scc749) when a magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance ..... of the code is a condition precedent for launching the prosecution is equally fallacious. this court has stated the legal position in s.r. munnipalli v. bombay (1955 (1) scr1177 and in amrik singh v. state pepsu (1955 rd-sc9 that it is not every offence committed by a public servant, which ..... requires sanction for prosecution under section 197 of the code, nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his ..... section 190 crpc , it is held thus : the other contention of the learned attorney general is that in taking cognizance under the p.c.act the court is guided by the provisions under section 190 of the code and in support of that contention the learned attorney general relied on several judgments. however .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 44ITR629(P& H)
..... had run out and the question was whether the period of eight years under the amended section would apply to proceedings which were being initiated for assessment. the madras high court answered this question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. in coming to this conclusion the learned judge proceeded on the principle that if a right is acquired ..... income-tax act was passed in 2001 bk., action could only have been taken in respect of the year 2000 bk. in 2002 bk. action could be taken in respect of the year 2000 and 2001. in the year 2005 bk. action could be taken for the entire period 2000 to 2005 bk. and lastly in case of concealment of income in the year 2008 bk. action could ..... concerned with the effect of this change.the territory of pepsu was integrated with the indian union for the purposes of ..... 1942-43. on the 20th of august, 1948, kapurthala became part of pepsu and the income-tax law, which was in force in patiala, was extended to kapurthala. in samvat 2006 bk., which corresponds to 1949, an act amending the original patiala income-tax act of 2001 bk. was passed. by this amending act the provisions of section 34 were changed. we are in this case .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC222; 2SCR353
..... said covenant the said rajpramukh issued, in ordinance applying all the laws obtaining in the state of patiala, including the patiala recovery of state dues act, 2002 bk., hereinafter called the act, to the entire state of pepsu. after the enquiry of six months, the rajapramukh issued a second ordinance extending for another six months the laws made applicable to the state of ..... to the appellants therein a large area of land belonging to the bettiah raj which was then under the management of the court of wards; the bihar legislature passed an act declaring that the settlements granted to the appellants shall be null and void and empowering the collector to eject the appellants if they refused to restore the lands. in ..... striking down the impugned enactment patanjali sastri, c.j., observed : 'this is purely a dispute between private parties and a matter for determination by duly constituted courts ..... force the discriminatory procedure cannot be continued. in suraj mall mahta & co. v. a.v. viswanath sastri : 26itr1(sc) , in the context of the same act, viz., act xxx of 1947, this court pointed out that though between the two procedures there was some similarity to be followed for catching evaded income, the overall picture was that there was substantial discrimination .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1959P& H601
..... 44 of the patiala judicature farman. 1999, reproduced above. 6. the patiala judicature farman, 1999 and the pepsu high court ordinange (no. ii of 2005 bk.) were repealed by section 119 of ordinance no. x or 2005 bk. which came into force on 25-10-1948. it is section 52 of this ordinance which is now ..... these reasons, i am of opinion that an appeal under section 52 of ordinance no. x of 2005 bk. against the decision of a single judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the pepsu high court would not be competent.11. a distinction was sought to be made out by mr. dalip chand, learned ..... of which the proviso fails to convey the complete sense. no decree can ever be passed in the exercise of the criminal appellate jurisdiction of the high court; use of the term 'decree' in conjunction with 'judgment' or 'order' is un-understandable. it does not stand to reason that while excluding the ..... except where the judgment, decree or order is made in exercise of criminal appellate jurisdiction or in exercise of the powers of superintendence vested in the high court. the section, as it stands, does not make any exception in case of judgment, decree or order made in exercise of the civil or criminal ..... election tribunal to issue notice to the parties to the election petition, before recording a finding under section 99(1)(a) of the representation of the people act. 1951. it was contended that under section 99(1)(a) the tribunal has to record the names 'of all persons' who arc proved to have .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1959P& H123
..... was admittedly contained in the ordinance relied upon by mr. atma ram as well as other learned counsel.this ordinance (no. x of 2005 bk) purported to consolidate and amend the law relating to the courts in pepsu and it came into force there in august, 1948, but even before then there was another procedural law in force with which we are not ..... provision corresponding to the code of civil procedure and consequently stood repealed.punjab act 38 of 1957 was meant to extend the punjab courts act along with certain other acts to the pepsu territory, and as a good part of section 49 of the pepsu ordinance corresponded to the provisions contained in the punjab courts act the legislature provided that, in spite of such extension, the extended provisions ..... his argument mr. nehra sought assistance from the fact that after the re-organisation of the states when pepsu was merged with the punjab on the 1st november, 1956. the punjab legislature enacted punjab act no. 38 of 1057, extending certain acts including the pun-jab courts act to the transferred territory, i.e., pf'psu,' and while doing so exnressly provided in section 4 ..... that kehar singh was a bona fide transferee having bought the property from the rata for valuable consideration and' must be protected by section 41 of the transfer of property act. this section is expressed thus:'section 41. where, with the consent, express or implied, of the persons interested in im-movenble property, a person is the ostensible owner of such .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Reported in : 144STC409(Ker)
..... industries within the state of kerala, they would certainly be entitled to plead the rule of estoppels in their favour when the state of kerala purports to act differently. several decisions of this court were cited in support of the stand of the appellants that in similar circumstances the plea of estoppels can be and has been applied and the leading ..... the said notification to the four categories mentioned in paragraph 21 supra. these exceptions, as already noted, are based on the principle of promissory estoppels as considered by the supreme court in mahaveer oil industries' case  115 stc 29. the circumstances under which a unit can be considered to have taken effective steps were incorporated in notifications s.r. ..... exemption are to be taken into account for interpreting the words used in the notification. in bajaj tempo ltd. v. commissioner of income-tax : 196itr188(sc) the supreme court held that provision granting incentive for promoting economic growth and development in taxing statutes should be liberally construed and restrictions placed on it by way of exception should be construed ..... should be strictly construed. (state level committee v. morgardshammar india ltd. : air1996sc524 and novopan india ltd v. collector of central excise and customs : 1994(73)elt769(sc) ). the supreme court in pappu sweets and biscuits v. commissioner of trade tax, u.p., lucknow  111 stc 425 held that object of the relevant exemption notification and the intention of the .....Tag this Judgment!