Bhula Ram And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 23 September, 2009
Accordingly, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed in
terms of our judgment rendered in the case of Karnail Singh (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.47 seconds)Documents citing
Karnail Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 August, 2009
Sant Ram And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 20 October, 2009
Accordingly, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed in
terms of our judgment rendered in the case of Karnail Singh (supra).
Sawarn Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 October, 2009
This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.16231 of
2008 (Sawarn Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and
others), and 20161 of 2008 (Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana
and others). The issue raised in both the writ petitions is common
and is concerning the recognition of a qualification acquired by
person while serving in the Army. The facts are being taken from Civil
Writ Petition No.16231 of 2008.
Swaran Singh vs Financial Commissioner on 7 January, 2010
28. The argument that as the Commissioner, in his earlier order dated
29.7.2004 had set aside the appointment of Baldev Singh by holding that as
he had not challenged the original order appointing the petitioner, his
candidature could not be reconsidered, cannot be accepted. The order
passed by the Collector was set aside by the Commissioner with a direction
to decide the entire matter afresh after considering the merits of all the
candidates and though an observation was made that Baldev Singh did not
file an appeal, the Collector was directed to decide the entire dispute afresh.
The argument that the hereditary claim of the petitioner should have been
accorded precedence cannot be accepted. The provision of Rule 17 that
provides precedence to hereditary claims has held to be ultra vires by a
Division Bench of this court in a judgement reported as Karnail Singh V.
The State of Haryana and others, 1973 PLJ 676. A relevant extract of the
aforementioned judgement reads as follows :-
Surjit Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 February, 2011
In support of his contention, he has placed reliance
on Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, JT 1994 (3) SC
525, which was subsequently followed in number of cases including
Karnail Singh and others Vs. The State of Haryana and others,
1998 (1) ILR Punjab and Haryana, 402, laying down that claim for
compassionate appointment cannot be kept alive for awaiting
majority because the object of compassionate appointment is to
provide immediate relief to the family.
Hoshiar Chand vs The Financial Commissioner ... on 31 March, 2011
I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel.
It is a fact admitted by learned counsel for the respondent that at
the point in time when applications were invited for appointment of
Lambardar, respondent No.4 owned only 4 kanals and 10 marlas of land.
Naksha Lambardari indicated the said fact and therefore, the said fact was
taken into account by the Collector while passing order Annexure P-1, as
upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order Annexure P-4. It is
subsequently in inheritance that the respondent came to own land which
made him owner of 19 kanals of land. As against this there is no dispute in
regard to the land holding by the petitioner to the extent of 19 kanals. So far
as educational qualification is concerned, clearly the petitioner is a
matriculate whereas respondent No.4 is only 7th Class pass. Essentially, the
choice of the Collector is to be respected, in so much as Collector is a
Revenue Officer in the District who is required to take work from the
Lambardar, in context of provisions of Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue
Rules. A Division Bench of this Court in 'Karnail Singh v. The State of
Haryana and others, 1973 PLJ 676' has held the rule in regard to hereditary
claim to be violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15
and 16 of the Constitution.
Rupla And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 29 March, 2012
(supra) Accordingly, the
instant petition fails and the same is dismissed in terms of Division
Bench judgment rendered in the case of Karnail Singh (supra).
Bijender vs Financial Commissioner on 6 February, 2013
So far as the hereditary claim is concerned, the Financial
Commissioner committed no error of law, while holding that
hereditary claim has been declared unconstitutional by this Court.
Further, minus the hereditary claim of the petitioner, respondent No.4
was rightly found having an edge over the petitioner. The instructions
(Annexure P-5), relied upon by the learned counsel have been rightly
ignored by the Financial Commissioner as the same cannot override
the provisions of law and also the judgment rendered by this Court in
Karnail Singh versus State of Haryana and others, 1974 PLR 67.
The order passed by the Commissioner has been rightly set aside by
the Financial Commissioner because the Commissioner has failed to
record any reason or finding to the effect that the order passed by
the Collector was suffering from any patent illegality or perversity.
Market Committee vs Parveen Kumar And Others on 5 August, 2013
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner relying on Division Bench judgments
of this Court in CWP No. 10333 of 2011, titled Kulwant Rai and others
versus State of Haryana and others decided on 2.6.2011 Annexure P/7,
CWP No. 7753 of 2011 titled Harbans Kaur and others versus Union of
India and others decided on 16.1.2012 Annexure P/8 and CWP No. 21077
of 2008 titled Karnail Singh versus State of Haryana and others decided on
13.8.2009 Annexure P/10 and Single Bench judgment in CR No. 3225 of
2012, titled Market Committee Safidon versus Rattan Singh and another
decided on 7.12.2012 contended that income tax had to be deducted at
source on the interest amount paid under sections 28 and 34 of the Act.
Date Of Decision: 6.09.2013 vs The Union Of India And Others on 6 September, 2013
7. As noticed above, the Division Bench of this Court in
Karnail Singh's case (supra) has held that the interest received on
account of delayed payment of the compensation amount is revenue
receipt and is exigible to income tax being revenue receipt under the
Kumar Pardeep
2013.09.27 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP No.3477 of 2006 -3-
****
Income Tax Act, 1961.