Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 204 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors on 19 October, 2010

Om Prakash Soni vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 August, 2022

42. CWP No.16431 of 2022 filed Cases not ● Threat based by Sh. Sanjeev Singh R/o covered by ● No specific threat Hoshiarpur v/s State of Punjab aforementioned & others 3 security ● No norm reviews ● 01 PSO as per Court orders 21 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2022 06:22:59 ::: CWP Nos.11872 of 2022 & other connected cases 22 [14]. The aforesaid table contains the details of those protectees whose security has been de-categorized, withdrawn and even those whose cases are not covered in any of the security reviews. Report of security reviews cannot be reproduced in the order, being privileged documents as secrecy is involved in respect of members of protection review groups and security review committee. Different meetings were held by the protection review groups and security review committees having different compositions of police officers. Reports were produced before the Court in sealed cover. After perusal of the reports, the reports have been sealed again. [15]. Evidently, the State security review held by the Committee on 02.02.2022 in respect of 557 protectees has not been leaked. The State security review done by the Committee on 29.03.2022 has come under the public domain and so as the later security reviews. This Court has seen the minutes of the meeting with reference the recommendations made by the Review Committee in respect of different protectees having different categories of security covers. Security issue is not a static phenomenon, rather it is a dynamic process. The security reviews have to be done on periodical basis by assessing the security threat of the protectees with the passage of time on the basis of official inputs provided by the different agencies 22 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2022 06:22:59 ::: CWP Nos.11872 of 2022 & other connected cases 23 including State and Central agencies.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 10 - R M Singh - Full Document

______________________________________________________ vs Jagdish Ram on 28 July, 2016

23. I have considered the law cited by the learned senior counsel for the appellant in 2010(13) SCC 216, Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, it is of clear that the Hon'ble High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC can definitely go into the question whether the rt findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court and Trial Court are the result of erroneous approach and in case the findings are perverse, the appeal is maintainable, but in the present case the Court below has considered all the material aspects of the case, documentary as well as oral evidence led by the parties and the pleadings of the parties are appreciated in their right perspective and the law has been applied correctly. So, the law cited by the learned senior counsel for the appellant (defendant) is not helpful to the appellant in this case and the substantial question No. 2 is answered holding that the findings recorded by the Court below are just, reasoned and after appreciating the evidence and pleadings in their true perspective.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - C B Barowalia - Full Document

Bacha Pandey & Ors. vs Nawal Kishore Pandey on 27 August, 2014

The next contention of the appellants is that the first Appellate Court while considering the case put up by the defendants based on adverse possession has ignored relevant evidence. The Appellate Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment has appraised oral evidence on the point of possession and dispossession and relied on the evidence of P.W. 14 being a witness from the boundary of the suit land who had deposed to support the case of the plaintiff. The specific case of the plaintiff that they continued in possession until dispossessed by the defendants was also found support from Ext.E which is the order passed in Case No. 512M/2001 wherein the defendants had admitted that in the first week of December, 2001, the wall in question was constructed by the ancestor of the defendants. The Court below thus found much credence in the case of the plaintiff that they were dispossessed in 2001. The Appellate Court thus made independent assessment of the evidence and set out Patna High Court SA No.347 of 2010 (8) dt.27-08-2014 9 reason(s) in support of the conclusions. Those findings do not suffer from any perversity. They are not mere ipse dixit of the Court or based on mere conjectures and surmises. If that be so then these findings/conclusions cannot be flawed. The Apex Court in Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (2010) 13 SCC 216 in paragraph 28 opined as under:
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K K Mandal - Full Document

Sri Ramawatar Agarwalla & Anr vs Sri Laxman Prasad Agarwalla on 14 August, 2018

Similarly, despite the strenuous argument made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, this court is of the considered opinion that there is nothing from which it can be held that the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below is vitiated by perversity, as such, the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur (supra), cited on the point does not appear to help the appellant in any way.
Gauhati High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

Sde, Sewerage, Sunam vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on 5 January, 2016

However, the ratio of the judgment "Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur versus Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors". 2011 (1) CPC 7" is not applicable in the present case. In this case complainant meter was 200/5 CT and one phase was wrongly connected. After checking, meter was removed and handed over to Baljit Singh SDO City Sunam, who sealed the disputed meter against seal No.250363 dated 12.10.2011. After that new meter was installed vide MCO No.035/10156 dated 19.08.2011. Meter was not challenged by the complainant regarding its correctness. On 18.11.2011 reading of new meter was KWHVAH F.A. No. 463 of 2014 6 10358 as reported by Sh. Surjit Singh SDO. On calculating reading from 12.10.2011 to 18.11.2011(ExR14) 223 units were recorded by new installed meter. Account of the complainant was overhauled as per regulations of OPs and demand notice No.1892 dated 24.08.2011 to the tune of Rs14,17,832/- was issued to complainant.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jindal Steel And Power Limited And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. 12 ... on 21 January, 2020

25. The Petitioners attack Annexure P/1 order referring to the violation of the principles of natural justice as well, in so far as no notice or opportunity of hearing was given; nor any assessment was made as to the determination of the quantum of liability, unlike in the case of assessment of tax under various statutes. The fixation of liability towards the EDC is clear and certain, by virtue of the rate/quantum mentioned under Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act. The liability of the Distributor to satisfy the Cess at the above rate with respect to number of units and the necessity to file return under Rule 7(1) of the Rules, 1949 before the Electrical Inspector are also clear and definite. Since the number of units sold/supplied/ used by the Distributor is clearly within the knowledge of the Distributor and since the 'rate per unit' is also clearly stipulated in the statute itself, the rest is for the Petitioner/Distributor to show the relevant figures in the return to be filed before the Electrical Inspector after satisfaction of the duty in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1949. There is no ambiguity/obscurity in any manner and the statute does not envisage issuance of any notice as to the fixation of liability. This is something like the satisfaction of the tax payable in respect of motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and such other similar statutes. When the statute is a 'self-contained' one as to the rate and the manner of satisfaction, fixing the extent of liability upon the Distributor, the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice with reference to non-issuance of 19 notice or opportunity of hearing is not correct or sustainable and is unfounded. This being the position, the reliance sought to be placed on Kothari Filament v. Commissioner of Customs {(2009) 2 SCC 198 paragraph 15}, Municipal Committee, Hosiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board, {(2010) 13 SCC 216, paragraphs 31 to 36}, Kesar Enterprises Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, {(2011) 13 SCC 711, paragraphs 23, 30 to 36} and Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. Union of India, {(1981) 1 SCC 664, paragraphs 21 to 45} in respect of the violation of principles of natural justice is quite out of context and is not applicable.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next