SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.24430 OF 2008
Om Prakash
Vs.
Ashwani Kumar Bassi
Date of Decision 27.08.2010
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Section 13-B is a power given to a Non-Resident Indian owner of a building to obtain immediate possession of a residential building or scheduled building when required for his or her use or for the use of any one ordinarily living with and dependent on him or her. The right has been limited to one application only during the life time of the owner. Section 18-A(2) of the aforesaid Act provides that after an application under Section 13-B is received, the Controller shall issue summons for service on the tenant in the form specified in Schedule II. The said form indicates that within 15 days of service of the summons the tenant is required to appear before the Controller and apply for leave to contest the same. There is no specific provision to vest the Rent Controller with authority to extend the time for making of such affidavit and the application. The Rent Controller being a creature of statute can only act in terms of the powers vested in him by statute and cannot, therefore, entertain an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay since the statute does not vest him with such power.
In such case, neither the Rent Controller nor the High Court had committed any error of law in rejecting the Petitioner’s application for seeking leave to contest the suit, since the same had been filed beyond the period prescribed in the form in Schedule II of the Act referred to in Section 18-A(2) thereof.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 21--Execution Proceeding
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1922
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 4033 of 2010
Balraj
v.
Nathu Ram & Ors.
{Decided on 01/07/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Avtar Singh Khinda, Advocate.
Constitution of India, 1950, Art.227--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 21--Execution Proceeding--Objections--Possession--Contention that suit property belong to Cantonment Board and therefore, decree-holder cannot seek possession of suit property in execution of decree is misconceived--No such objection can be raised in execution petition--Petitioner is son and grandson of judgment-debtors and claims through them--Petitioner has no independent right to remain in possession of suit property. (Para 4)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 4033 of 2010
Balraj
v.
Nathu Ram & Ors.
{Decided on 01/07/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Avtar Singh Khinda, Advocate.
Constitution of India, 1950, Art.227--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 21--Execution Proceeding--Objections--Possession--Contention that suit property belong to Cantonment Board and therefore, decree-holder cannot seek possession of suit property in execution of decree is misconceived--No such objection can be raised in execution petition--Petitioner is son and grandson of judgment-debtors and claims through them--Petitioner has no independent right to remain in possession of suit property. (Para 4)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988--Award--Execution--Objections
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1921
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
C. R. No. 7180 of 2008
Nirmal Singh
v.
Charanjit Kaur & Ors.
{Decided on 01/07/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents no.1 to 3 and 5: Mr. P. K. S. Phoolka, Advocate.
For the Respondent no. 6: Mr. R. P. Dariya, Advocate for Mr. K. K. Garg, Advocate.
Constitution of India, 1950, Art.227--Motor Vehicles Act, 1988--Award--Execution--Objections--Report on warrant of attachment, issued for attachment of land, reveals that, when attachment was sought to be made, it was found land has already been sold by judgment-debtor--Impugned order that attachment of land was effected prior to execution of sale deed in favour of objectors set aside--Matter is remanded for fresh decision of objections. (Para 10 & 11)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
C. R. No. 7180 of 2008
Nirmal Singh
v.
Charanjit Kaur & Ors.
{Decided on 01/07/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents no.1 to 3 and 5: Mr. P. K. S. Phoolka, Advocate.
For the Respondent no. 6: Mr. R. P. Dariya, Advocate for Mr. K. K. Garg, Advocate.
Constitution of India, 1950, Art.227--Motor Vehicles Act, 1988--Award--Execution--Objections--Report on warrant of attachment, issued for attachment of land, reveals that, when attachment was sought to be made, it was found land has already been sold by judgment-debtor--Impugned order that attachment of land was effected prior to execution of sale deed in favour of objectors set aside--Matter is remanded for fresh decision of objections. (Para 10 & 11)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 (1)
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2080
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-12587of 2010
Kuldeep
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 27/05/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Ghangas, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Shalini Attri, Deptuy Advocate General, Haryana
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 (1)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.147, 148, 307, 506--Arms Act, 1959, S.25--Bail--Change in circumstances since dismissal of petition filed earlier for bail--Statements of complaint and injured recorded before trial court annexed with petition-- Shows that they resiled from their previous statement--They never stated that it was petitioner who caused injuries--Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail. (Para 4, 5 & 6)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-12587of 2010
Kuldeep
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 27/05/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Ghangas, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Shalini Attri, Deptuy Advocate General, Haryana
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 (1)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.147, 148, 307, 506--Arms Act, 1959, S.25--Bail--Change in circumstances since dismissal of petition filed earlier for bail--Statements of complaint and injured recorded before trial court annexed with petition-- Shows that they resiled from their previous statement--They never stated that it was petitioner who caused injuries--Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail. (Para 4, 5 & 6)
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 r/w S.17--Acquisition of land–Public Purpose
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 2072
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan
CWP No. 9483 of 2009
Niranjan Singh
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 21/06/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Prachi Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 r/w S.17--Acquisition of land–Public Purpose--Urgency--Whenever land is required for a public purpose which in opinion of appropriate government is of urgent importance then after publication of notice in accordance with provisions of Section 17(1) of Act and with previous sanction of State Government Collector may enter upon and take possession of said land although after 48 hours mandatory notice is required in specified cases as per proviso. (Para 19)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 r/w S.17--Acquisition of land –Public Purpose--Urgency--There is no independent application of mind by respondent-State whether urgency is of such a nature that it would not bear even delay which might be required for filing and hearing of objections under Section 5 A of Act--Issuance of notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(2) and Section 6 of Act are liable to be quashed being without jurisdiction. (Para 23)
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 r/w S.17 and 5-A--Acquisition of land –Public Purpose--Urgency--Hearing of objections--First issue pertains to utility of existing village pond--Other issue is whether land is required for purpose of constructing another pond and whether same is suitable for aforesaid public purpose--All these questions could have been addressed by filing objections under Section 5A of Act and after hearing of those objections a report could have been sent to Government by Collector--Thereafter Government could have considered report of Collector and a final decision could have been taken--This position emerges from withdrawal of earlier notification issued on 16.11.2007--Delay is caused in finalizing present acquisition proceedings is attributable to State Government--Record shows that on account of additions and deletion of certain land some amendment in earlier notification dated 18.11.2007 was required to be published which could be done by initiating acquisition process afresh--Notifications dated 16.11.2007 and 25.1.2008 earlier issued for same purpose were withdrawn--Whole delay is imputable to respondent-State which impinges upon on invocation of urgency clause--Dispensing with Section 5 A of Act was not automatic and opportunity of filing objections and granting hearing to land owners should have been afforded--Had it been done then persons interested in land could have filed their objections which could eventually be decided by Government--Therefore, notification initiating process of acquisition of land under Section 4 read with Section 17(2) (c) and subsequent notification dated 12.6.2009 are not sustainable. (Para 24 & 25)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan
CWP No. 9483 of 2009
Niranjan Singh
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 21/06/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Prachi Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 r/w S.17--Acquisition of land–Public Purpose--Urgency--Whenever land is required for a public purpose which in opinion of appropriate government is of urgent importance then after publication of notice in accordance with provisions of Section 17(1) of Act and with previous sanction of State Government Collector may enter upon and take possession of said land although after 48 hours mandatory notice is required in specified cases as per proviso. (Para 19)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 r/w S.17--Acquisition of land –Public Purpose--Urgency--There is no independent application of mind by respondent-State whether urgency is of such a nature that it would not bear even delay which might be required for filing and hearing of objections under Section 5 A of Act--Issuance of notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(2) and Section 6 of Act are liable to be quashed being without jurisdiction. (Para 23)
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 r/w S.17 and 5-A--Acquisition of land –Public Purpose--Urgency--Hearing of objections--First issue pertains to utility of existing village pond--Other issue is whether land is required for purpose of constructing another pond and whether same is suitable for aforesaid public purpose--All these questions could have been addressed by filing objections under Section 5A of Act and after hearing of those objections a report could have been sent to Government by Collector--Thereafter Government could have considered report of Collector and a final decision could have been taken--This position emerges from withdrawal of earlier notification issued on 16.11.2007--Delay is caused in finalizing present acquisition proceedings is attributable to State Government--Record shows that on account of additions and deletion of certain land some amendment in earlier notification dated 18.11.2007 was required to be published which could be done by initiating acquisition process afresh--Notifications dated 16.11.2007 and 25.1.2008 earlier issued for same purpose were withdrawn--Whole delay is imputable to respondent-State which impinges upon on invocation of urgency clause--Dispensing with Section 5 A of Act was not automatic and opportunity of filing objections and granting hearing to land owners should have been afforded--Had it been done then persons interested in land could have filed their objections which could eventually be decided by Government--Therefore, notification initiating process of acquisition of land under Section 4 read with Section 17(2) (c) and subsequent notification dated 12.6.2009 are not sustainable. (Para 24 & 25)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.419, 420, 468 , 471--Cheating
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Revision No.2224 of 2002
Amar Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 04/06/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.N. Kush, Advocate.
For the Respondent – State: Mr. Manish Deswal, DAG, Haryana.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.419, 420, 468 & 471--Cheating--Forgery--In view of categoric findings of Civil Court it cannot be said that alleged forged mutation was used for cheating or was fraudulently used as genuine--Therefore, petitioners are entitled to acquittal so far as offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC are concerned--If land was not mortgaged, then mutation dated 7.3.1983 whereby redemption of land was shown cannot be said that it was used for cheating--Therefore, offence under Section 420 IPC is also not made out--But since in mutation proceedings ‘H’ was impersonated, offence will fall under Section 419 IPC--Petitioners were taken into custody on 30.10.2002--They were ordered to be released on bail on 16.1.2003--They have undergone 2 months and 16 days of actual sentence--Appellate Court had reduced sentence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC to eight months RI--Alleged mutation pertained to year 1983--FIR was registered against petitioner-accused in year 1985--They are in corridors of Courts for last 25 years--Since offence has been converted to Section 419 IPC considering mental pain and agony of protracted trial suffered by petitioners, sentence already undergone by petitioners will serve purpose--Petitioners are acquitted of offence under Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC--They are held liable for offence under Section 419 IPC and awarded sentence of 2 months and 16 days, period already undergone by them. (Para 19, 20 & 21)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Revision No.2224 of 2002
Amar Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 04/06/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.N. Kush, Advocate.
For the Respondent – State: Mr. Manish Deswal, DAG, Haryana.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.419, 420, 468 & 471--Cheating--Forgery--In view of categoric findings of Civil Court it cannot be said that alleged forged mutation was used for cheating or was fraudulently used as genuine--Therefore, petitioners are entitled to acquittal so far as offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC are concerned--If land was not mortgaged, then mutation dated 7.3.1983 whereby redemption of land was shown cannot be said that it was used for cheating--Therefore, offence under Section 420 IPC is also not made out--But since in mutation proceedings ‘H’ was impersonated, offence will fall under Section 419 IPC--Petitioners were taken into custody on 30.10.2002--They were ordered to be released on bail on 16.1.2003--They have undergone 2 months and 16 days of actual sentence--Appellate Court had reduced sentence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC to eight months RI--Alleged mutation pertained to year 1983--FIR was registered against petitioner-accused in year 1985--They are in corridors of Courts for last 25 years--Since offence has been converted to Section 419 IPC considering mental pain and agony of protracted trial suffered by petitioners, sentence already undergone by petitioners will serve purpose--Petitioners are acquitted of offence under Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC--They are held liable for offence under Section 419 IPC and awarded sentence of 2 months and 16 days, period already undergone by them. (Para 19, 20 & 21)
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.166 (6)
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2068
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Civil Writ Petition No.7791 of 2010
Shobha Ram & Anr.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 28/05/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Constitution of India, 1950, Art.226--Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.166 (6)--Amendment of voter list--Writ Jurisdiction--Disputed question of facts have been arisen in petition with regard to submission of objections by petitioners against voter list issued by official respondents--Cannot be adjudicated upon by High court in writ jurisdiction as no evidence is available to decide such issues--Also, in view of Bar contained is Section 166(6) it is not possible for High court at this stage to direct amendment of voter list--In view of fact that election process had already set in motion, there is no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction . (Para 5 & 6)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Civil Writ Petition No.7791 of 2010
Shobha Ram & Anr.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 28/05/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Constitution of India, 1950, Art.226--Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.166 (6)--Amendment of voter list--Writ Jurisdiction--Disputed question of facts have been arisen in petition with regard to submission of objections by petitioners against voter list issued by official respondents--Cannot be adjudicated upon by High court in writ jurisdiction as no evidence is available to decide such issues--Also, in view of Bar contained is Section 166(6) it is not possible for High court at this stage to direct amendment of voter list--In view of fact that election process had already set in motion, there is no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction . (Para 5 & 6)
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949--Rent--Controversy about period for which rent was payable
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2067
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. D. Anand
Civil Revision No. 7162 of 2009
Sh. Vishva Sharva Talwar Malik
v.
Devinder Singh Aulakh
{Decided on 25/05/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. V.K.Jindal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K.Pipat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ramanjit Singh, Advocate.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949--Rent--Controversy about period for which rent was payable--Landlord claimed rent for period 1.4.2004 to 30.12.2006--Tenant relied upon an order dated 10.3.2009 vide which learned Rent Controller had held that rent had been paid by tenant to landlord for period upto February, 2007--Though learned Rent Controller noticed factum of order dated 10.3.2009, it did not examine and indicate effect thereof upon period for which rent was payable--Impugned order set aside--Learned Rent Controller shall grant an order afresh in matter of assessment of provisional rent. (Para 1, 2 & 3)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. D. Anand
Civil Revision No. 7162 of 2009
Sh. Vishva Sharva Talwar Malik
v.
Devinder Singh Aulakh
{Decided on 25/05/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. V.K.Jindal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K.Pipat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ramanjit Singh, Advocate.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949--Rent--Controversy about period for which rent was payable--Landlord claimed rent for period 1.4.2004 to 30.12.2006--Tenant relied upon an order dated 10.3.2009 vide which learned Rent Controller had held that rent had been paid by tenant to landlord for period upto February, 2007--Though learned Rent Controller noticed factum of order dated 10.3.2009, it did not examine and indicate effect thereof upon period for which rent was payable--Impugned order set aside--Learned Rent Controller shall grant an order afresh in matter of assessment of provisional rent. (Para 1, 2 & 3)
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.166 (6)
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2066
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Civil Writ Petition No.9877 of 2010
Jubena Khatun
v.
State Election Commissioner Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 28/05/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate.
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.166 (6)--Amendment in voter list--Belated Claim-- Petitioner sought direction to include her name in voter list--After publication of draft voter- list, official respondents had invited objections from inhabitants of village--Number of objections were received--Despite fact that petitioner is stated to be politically active, she did not submit any objection to draft voter-list within prescribed period--Therefore, her name could not be included in voter-list--Election process has already been set in motion--Moreover, in view of bar contained in section 166(6) of Act, it is not possible at this stage to direct any amendment in voter-list--Interference of in writ jurisdiction not warranted. (Para 5)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Civil Writ Petition No.9877 of 2010
Jubena Khatun
v.
State Election Commissioner Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 28/05/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate.
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.166 (6)--Amendment in voter list--Belated Claim-- Petitioner sought direction to include her name in voter list--After publication of draft voter- list, official respondents had invited objections from inhabitants of village--Number of objections were received--Despite fact that petitioner is stated to be politically active, she did not submit any objection to draft voter-list within prescribed period--Therefore, her name could not be included in voter-list--Election process has already been set in motion--Moreover, in view of bar contained in section 166(6) of Act, it is not possible at this stage to direct any amendment in voter-list--Interference of in writ jurisdiction not warranted. (Para 5)
ndian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, 467, 468 471--Cheating--Forgery--Conviction-
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2064
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl. Revision No.2061 of 2002
Satbir
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 04/06/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. J.S.Hooda, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Manish Deswal, DAG, Haryana.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, 467, 468 & 471--Cheating--Forgery--Conviction--Allegation against petitioner was that on 31.8.2000, he produced a forged receipt of fine for release of jeep on supardari issued by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was of valuable security and HC delivered RC book of jeep--In pursuance to disclosure statement made by him, some forged receipts and rubber stamps were recovered--Police witnesses are not inimical towards accused--Petitioner had not only appeared before HC and produced forged receipt but also handed over registration cover to owner of jeep--Conviction of petitioner for various offences upheld--However Petitioner had already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for a period of 10 years--Taking these facts into consideration, sentence awarded to petitioner for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC reduced to 1 ½ years--However, sentence awarded to petitioner under Section 420 IPC maintained. (Para 7, 15, 17 & 18)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl. Revision No.2061 of 2002
Satbir
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 04/06/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. J.S.Hooda, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Manish Deswal, DAG, Haryana.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, 467, 468 & 471--Cheating--Forgery--Conviction--Allegation against petitioner was that on 31.8.2000, he produced a forged receipt of fine for release of jeep on supardari issued by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was of valuable security and HC delivered RC book of jeep--In pursuance to disclosure statement made by him, some forged receipts and rubber stamps were recovered--Police witnesses are not inimical towards accused--Petitioner had not only appeared before HC and produced forged receipt but also handed over registration cover to owner of jeep--Conviction of petitioner for various offences upheld--However Petitioner had already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for a period of 10 years--Taking these facts into consideration, sentence awarded to petitioner for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC reduced to 1 ½ years--However, sentence awarded to petitioner under Section 420 IPC maintained. (Para 7, 15, 17 & 18)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 4, 6, 5A 9--Objections--Non-filing of
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 2057
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan
CWP No. 18931 of 2009 (O&M)
Rishi Pal etc.
v.
State of Haryana etc.
{Decided on 05/04/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Palika Monga DAG Haryana
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Shallie Taneja, Advocate.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 4, 6, 5A & 9--Objections--Non-filing of--Petitioner unable to produce any receipt of sending objections by registered letter or acknowledgement--He was also not able to show original copy of objections--Identical language in objections filed by petitioners in both set of cases would show that it is an after thought and no objections infact were filed--Notification under Section 4 issued on 15.12.2006 and declaration was made on 14.12.2007 granting ample opportunity to petitioners to file objections and seek their remedy in accordance with law--It cannot be said that no declaration can be made under Section 6 of Act as notification issued under Section 4 has been described as if it is issued by invoking urgency provisions of Section 17(1) of Act--No prejudice could be said to have caused to petitioners--Writ petitions dismissed. (Para 3, 4, 5 & 6)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan
CWP No. 18931 of 2009 (O&M)
Rishi Pal etc.
v.
State of Haryana etc.
{Decided on 05/04/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Palika Monga DAG Haryana
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Shallie Taneja, Advocate.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 4, 6, 5A & 9--Objections--Non-filing of--Petitioner unable to produce any receipt of sending objections by registered letter or acknowledgement--He was also not able to show original copy of objections--Identical language in objections filed by petitioners in both set of cases would show that it is an after thought and no objections infact were filed--Notification under Section 4 issued on 15.12.2006 and declaration was made on 14.12.2007 granting ample opportunity to petitioners to file objections and seek their remedy in accordance with law--It cannot be said that no declaration can be made under Section 6 of Act as notification issued under Section 4 has been described as if it is issued by invoking urgency provisions of Section 17(1) of Act--No prejudice could be said to have caused to petitioners--Writ petitions dismissed. (Para 3, 4, 5 & 6)
Removal of President--Transfer and posting of some of employees of Council from one place to another would not amount to abuse of power and further whether postponement of date of receiving of tenders would amount to abuse of power without causing any financial burden or loss on Council.
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2060
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
C.W.P. No. 6793 of 2010
Rajinder Singh Rana
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 28/06/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.C. Pathela, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Satish Bhanot, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent-State
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Salil Sagar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. H.S. Sethi, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Removal of President--Transfer and posting of some of employees of Council from one place to another would not amount to abuse of power and further whether postponement of date of receiving of tenders would amount to abuse of power without causing any financial burden or loss on Council.
(A) Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, S.22--Removal of President or Vice President--Govt. can remove President or Vice-President if-
i) Govt. finds that President/Vice President has abused his power or
ii) he guilty of habitual failure to perform his duty or
iii) 2/3rd members of committee have resolved to remove him. (Para 5)
(B) Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, S.22--Removal of President--Whether transfer and posting of some of employees of Council from one place to another would amount to abuse of power and further whether postponement of date of receiving of tenders would amount to abuse of power without causing any financial burden or loss on Council--NO--Mere transfer order by wrongly interpreting bye-laws without any element of ill motive can not be said to be abuse of powers--Neither impugned order nor any material available on record goes to suggest that transfer order was ill motive for wrongful gains for himself or to cause financial loss to council or employees--Likewise postponement of receiving of tender for future date without causing any financial loss to Council does not amount to abuse of powers--Observation of Principal Secretary in impugned order is that postponement of tender strengthens doubt that same was done with intention to accommodate non-eligible contractors--Is unjustified and not supported by any evidence--No name is given who was non-eligible and granted contract subsequently--Impugned order quashed--Petitioner shall be given charge of President--Respondent No. 3 shall cease to occupy office of President of Council. (Paras 6, 9, 10 & 12)
(C) Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, S.22--Removal of President--Removal of elected President only on basis of some suspicion and doubt without any element of illmotive or malafide intention to gain wrongfully or to cause loss to Council will not amount to abuse of power under Section 22 of Punjab Municipal Act. (Para 6)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
C.W.P. No. 6793 of 2010
Rajinder Singh Rana
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 28/06/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.C. Pathela, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Satish Bhanot, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent-State
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Salil Sagar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. H.S. Sethi, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Removal of President--Transfer and posting of some of employees of Council from one place to another would not amount to abuse of power and further whether postponement of date of receiving of tenders would amount to abuse of power without causing any financial burden or loss on Council.
(A) Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, S.22--Removal of President or Vice President--Govt. can remove President or Vice-President if-
i) Govt. finds that President/Vice President has abused his power or
ii) he guilty of habitual failure to perform his duty or
iii) 2/3rd members of committee have resolved to remove him. (Para 5)
(B) Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, S.22--Removal of President--Whether transfer and posting of some of employees of Council from one place to another would amount to abuse of power and further whether postponement of date of receiving of tenders would amount to abuse of power without causing any financial burden or loss on Council--NO--Mere transfer order by wrongly interpreting bye-laws without any element of ill motive can not be said to be abuse of powers--Neither impugned order nor any material available on record goes to suggest that transfer order was ill motive for wrongful gains for himself or to cause financial loss to council or employees--Likewise postponement of receiving of tender for future date without causing any financial loss to Council does not amount to abuse of powers--Observation of Principal Secretary in impugned order is that postponement of tender strengthens doubt that same was done with intention to accommodate non-eligible contractors--Is unjustified and not supported by any evidence--No name is given who was non-eligible and granted contract subsequently--Impugned order quashed--Petitioner shall be given charge of President--Respondent No. 3 shall cease to occupy office of President of Council. (Paras 6, 9, 10 & 12)
(C) Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, S.22--Removal of President--Removal of elected President only on basis of some suspicion and doubt without any element of illmotive or malafide intention to gain wrongfully or to cause loss to Council will not amount to abuse of power under Section 22 of Punjab Municipal Act. (Para 6)
FIR--Compromise--Cruelty to wife
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2059
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-15942 of 2010
Sukhdevinder Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 28/06/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Ahluwalia, Advocate.For the Respondent-State: Mr. K.C. Gupta, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, 406 & 506--Quashing of FIR--Compromise--Cruelty to wife--Parties of their own have settled matrimonial dispute amongst them--They have decided to part ways amicably--In circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with criminal prosecution any further--Impugned FIR and consequential proceedings quashed. (Para 6 & 7)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-15942 of 2010
Sukhdevinder Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 28/06/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Ahluwalia, Advocate.For the Respondent-State: Mr. K.C. Gupta, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, 406 & 506--Quashing of FIR--Compromise--Cruelty to wife--Parties of their own have settled matrimonial dispute amongst them--They have decided to part ways amicably--In circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with criminal prosecution any further--Impugned FIR and consequential proceedings quashed. (Para 6 & 7)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39, R.1 and 2-
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2054
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. N. Mittal
C.R. No. 5857 of 2009
Iqbal Singh & Ors.
v.
Karan Podar & Anr.
{Decided on 25/01/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. J. S. Chahal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39, R.1 and 2--Specific Relief Act, 1963--Temporary Injunction--Agreement to sell--Purchaser affirmed affidavit regarding his presence before Sub-Registrar on 16.04.2007--But he did not mention in said affidavit that he had brought requisite amount for getting sale deed executed and registered as per agreement--Seller was also present before Sub-Registrar on 16.04.2007and affirmed affidavit regarding his presence and readiness and willingness to execute sale deed as per agreement--Thereafter, Seller moved another application regarding his presence before Sub-Registrar--There is endorsement of Sub-Registrar thereon made at 05:00 P.M.. on 16.04.2007 regarding presence of Seller and his readiness to execute document--It has further been noticed by Sub-Registrar in his endorsement that purchaser has not shown transaction money required--It would prima facie depict that purchaser was not ready with requisite amount to get sale deed executed and registered as per agreement--This explains omission in affidavit affirmed by purchaser regarding amount being with him--In addition seller even served notice dated 23.04.2007 by registered post on purchaser to get sale deed executed and registered as per agreement--Purchaser alleged that they were forcibly dispossessed by seller in November 2007--However, inspite thereof, they did not file suit immediately, but filed after waiting for another five months--Even before November 2007, purchaser did not file suit after seller had allegedly failed to execute sale deed in April--No prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction in favour of purchaser is made out--However, since purchaser have advanced huge amount of Rs.1crore as earnest money directions required to be issued to protect interest of purchaser--Seller directed to inform prospective alienees about pendency of suit so that alieness may not take plea of being bona fide transferees--Application for temporary injunction dismissed.
(Para 11, 12, 15 & 16)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. N. Mittal
C.R. No. 5857 of 2009
Iqbal Singh & Ors.
v.
Karan Podar & Anr.
{Decided on 25/01/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. J. S. Chahal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39, R.1 and 2--Specific Relief Act, 1963--Temporary Injunction--Agreement to sell--Purchaser affirmed affidavit regarding his presence before Sub-Registrar on 16.04.2007--But he did not mention in said affidavit that he had brought requisite amount for getting sale deed executed and registered as per agreement--Seller was also present before Sub-Registrar on 16.04.2007and affirmed affidavit regarding his presence and readiness and willingness to execute sale deed as per agreement--Thereafter, Seller moved another application regarding his presence before Sub-Registrar--There is endorsement of Sub-Registrar thereon made at 05:00 P.M.. on 16.04.2007 regarding presence of Seller and his readiness to execute document--It has further been noticed by Sub-Registrar in his endorsement that purchaser has not shown transaction money required--It would prima facie depict that purchaser was not ready with requisite amount to get sale deed executed and registered as per agreement--This explains omission in affidavit affirmed by purchaser regarding amount being with him--In addition seller even served notice dated 23.04.2007 by registered post on purchaser to get sale deed executed and registered as per agreement--Purchaser alleged that they were forcibly dispossessed by seller in November 2007--However, inspite thereof, they did not file suit immediately, but filed after waiting for another five months--Even before November 2007, purchaser did not file suit after seller had allegedly failed to execute sale deed in April--No prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction in favour of purchaser is made out--However, since purchaser have advanced huge amount of Rs.1crore as earnest money directions required to be issued to protect interest of purchaser--Seller directed to inform prospective alienees about pendency of suit so that alieness may not take plea of being bona fide transferees--Application for temporary injunction dismissed.
(Para 11, 12, 15 & 16)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2051
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
FAO No. 642 of 1988 (O&M)
Satish Kumar
v.
Rattan Lal Ors.
{Decided on 17/02/2010}
For the appellant-claimant Satish Kumar: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG Haryana.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Negligence--As per the medical evidence injury was at the shoulder joint and arm--In normal circumstances it cannot be expected that a person will keep his entire arm outside window--Bus and truck were so close that it hit shoulder of claimant, as a result of which he suffered serious injuries on account of which his arm had to be amputated--Fact that both vehicles crossed each other so closely that it resulted in causing injury to occupant of the bus itself show rash and negligent driving--No Interference. (Para 10)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Right arm of appellant amputated from shoulder resulting in disability to extent of 70%--Appellant is entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of medical expenses, Rs. 2,000/- on account of conveyance charges and Rs. 2,000/- on account of special diet and Rs. 40,000/- on account of pain and suffering and Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss of income and extra expenditure to be made by him on account of his being handicapped, making it a total of Rs. 89,000/-.--Amount of enhanced compensation shall be payable to appellant along with interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till disbursement of compensation. (Para 18)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
FAO No. 642 of 1988 (O&M)
Satish Kumar
v.
Rattan Lal Ors.
{Decided on 17/02/2010}
For the appellant-claimant Satish Kumar: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG Haryana.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Negligence--As per the medical evidence injury was at the shoulder joint and arm--In normal circumstances it cannot be expected that a person will keep his entire arm outside window--Bus and truck were so close that it hit shoulder of claimant, as a result of which he suffered serious injuries on account of which his arm had to be amputated--Fact that both vehicles crossed each other so closely that it resulted in causing injury to occupant of the bus itself show rash and negligent driving--No Interference. (Para 10)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Right arm of appellant amputated from shoulder resulting in disability to extent of 70%--Appellant is entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of medical expenses, Rs. 2,000/- on account of conveyance charges and Rs. 2,000/- on account of special diet and Rs. 40,000/- on account of pain and suffering and Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss of income and extra expenditure to be made by him on account of his being handicapped, making it a total of Rs. 89,000/-.--Amount of enhanced compensation shall be payable to appellant along with interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till disbursement of compensation. (Para 18)
Friday, August 13, 2010
Compensation--Dependency--Amount of contribution to General Provident Fund is not be reduced from salary of deceased for purpose of calculation of dependency.
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2048
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
F.A.O. No. 2049 of 1994 (O&M)
Smt. Anguri Devi & Ors.
v.
Ramesh & Ors.
{Decided on 05/04/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. R. N. Lohan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation--Dependency--Amount of contribution to General Provident Fund is not be reduced from salary of deceased for purpose of calculation of dependency.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Dependency--Amount of contribution to General Provident Fund is not be reduced from salary of deceased for purpose of calculation of dependency--Contribution by deceased on account of Group Insurance Scheme is a kind of expense of premium paid for which benefit of insurance must have been paid to family was rightly reduced by Tribunal for purpose of calculation or dependency. (Para 8 & 9)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Calculations--Claimants being five reducing 1/3rd on account of personal expenses for purpose of calculation of dependency is set aside--Dependency directed to be calculated by reducing 1/4th therefrom--Considering age of deceased to be 30 years plus, multiplier of 16 would be quite reasonable--Monthly income of deceased is Rs. 3,379/- i.e., Rs. 40,548/- per annum--After application of cut of 1/4th, dependency comes to Rs. 30,411/- per annum--Applying multiplier of 16, compensation payable to claimants comes out to Rs. 4,86,576/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 4,87,000/-.--In addition, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- on account of consortium awarded--Amount on account of loss of consortium shall be paid to widow only--Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till its payment--Out of enhanced amount of compensation, Rs. 25,000/- each along with interest shall be paid to parents of deceased and rest of compensation shall be paid to widow considering fact that she had been taking care of family all along ever since death of husband. (Para 10 & 11)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
F.A.O. No. 2049 of 1994 (O&M)
Smt. Anguri Devi & Ors.
v.
Ramesh & Ors.
{Decided on 05/04/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. R. N. Lohan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation--Dependency--Amount of contribution to General Provident Fund is not be reduced from salary of deceased for purpose of calculation of dependency.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Dependency--Amount of contribution to General Provident Fund is not be reduced from salary of deceased for purpose of calculation of dependency--Contribution by deceased on account of Group Insurance Scheme is a kind of expense of premium paid for which benefit of insurance must have been paid to family was rightly reduced by Tribunal for purpose of calculation or dependency. (Para 8 & 9)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Calculations--Claimants being five reducing 1/3rd on account of personal expenses for purpose of calculation of dependency is set aside--Dependency directed to be calculated by reducing 1/4th therefrom--Considering age of deceased to be 30 years plus, multiplier of 16 would be quite reasonable--Monthly income of deceased is Rs. 3,379/- i.e., Rs. 40,548/- per annum--After application of cut of 1/4th, dependency comes to Rs. 30,411/- per annum--Applying multiplier of 16, compensation payable to claimants comes out to Rs. 4,86,576/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 4,87,000/-.--In addition, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- on account of consortium awarded--Amount on account of loss of consortium shall be paid to widow only--Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till its payment--Out of enhanced amount of compensation, Rs. 25,000/- each along with interest shall be paid to parents of deceased and rest of compensation shall be paid to widow considering fact that she had been taking care of family all along ever since death of husband. (Para 10 & 11)
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, S.25
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2047
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
FAO 358 of 2010 (O&M)
Jasbir Singh
v.
Krishna Devi
{Decided on 03/05/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate, for Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, S.25--Custody of minor--Territorial Jurisdiction--Minors have been removed from custody of father from Kapurthala ,therefore, Court at Kapurthala had territorial jurisdiction and not Court at Jalandhar where minors are residing with mother as children were ordinarily residing at Kapurthala--Matter remanded back to Court of Guardian Judge, Kapurthala, with a direction to decide between parties. (Para 6 & 10)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
FAO 358 of 2010 (O&M)
Jasbir Singh
v.
Krishna Devi
{Decided on 03/05/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate, for Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, S.25--Custody of minor--Territorial Jurisdiction--Minors have been removed from custody of father from Kapurthala ,therefore, Court at Kapurthala had territorial jurisdiction and not Court at Jalandhar where minors are residing with mother as children were ordinarily residing at Kapurthala--Matter remanded back to Court of Guardian Judge, Kapurthala, with a direction to decide between parties. (Para 6 & 10)
Expected Matter--Jurisdiction of arbitrator--When regarding certain disputes remedy had already been provided in agreement itself, then said matter cannot be decided by arbitrator.
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
FAO No.2064 of 2009 (O &M)
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd through its Manager & Anr.
v.
Dharampal & Ors.
{Decided on 14/05/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. H.R. Nohria, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Expected Matter--Jurisdiction of arbitrator--When regarding certain disputes remedy had already been provided in agreement itself, then said matter cannot be decided by arbitrator.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1994, S.4 & 34--Objections--Expected Matter--When regarding certain disputes remedy had already been provided in agreement itself, then said matter cannot be decided by arbitrator--Dispute of short supply of rice which is part of agreement--Matter has to be decided by Managing Director and not by Arbitrator. (Para 5 & 6)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
FAO No.2064 of 2009 (O &M)
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd through its Manager & Anr.
v.
Dharampal & Ors.
{Decided on 14/05/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. H.R. Nohria, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Expected Matter--Jurisdiction of arbitrator--When regarding certain disputes remedy had already been provided in agreement itself, then said matter cannot be decided by arbitrator.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1994, S.4 & 34--Objections--Expected Matter--When regarding certain disputes remedy had already been provided in agreement itself, then said matter cannot be decided by arbitrator--Dispute of short supply of rice which is part of agreement--Matter has to be decided by Managing Director and not by Arbitrator. (Para 5 & 6)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
F.A.O. No. 919 of 2009 (O&M)
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
v.
Biri Bai & Ors.
{Decided on 17/02/2010}
Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. Sunil K. Sharma, Advocat for the Respts No. 1 to 7 in FAO Nos. 919 and 1251 of 2009, respondent No. 1 in FAO No. 1256 of 2009 and repoets No. 1 to 3 in FAO No. 921 of 2009
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Liability of Insurance Company--Award challenged on ground that in spite of fact that Insurance Company was not held liable, still it has been directed to satisfy award first and thereafter recover same from owner of offending vehicle--Recently in National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Paravatheni and another a Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred matter to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench to decide following questions:
1) If an Insurance Company can prove that it does not have any liability to pay amount in law to claimants under Motor Vehicles Act or any other enactment, can Court yet compel it to pay amount in question giving it liberty to later on recover same from owner of vehicle.
2) Can such a direction be given under Article 142 of Constitution, and what is scope of Article 142. (Para 5, 7 & 8)
F.A.O. No. 919 of 2009 (O&M)
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
v.
Biri Bai & Ors.
{Decided on 17/02/2010}
Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. Sunil K. Sharma, Advocat for the Respts No. 1 to 7 in FAO Nos. 919 and 1251 of 2009, respondent No. 1 in FAO No. 1256 of 2009 and repoets No. 1 to 3 in FAO No. 921 of 2009
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Liability of Insurance Company--Award challenged on ground that in spite of fact that Insurance Company was not held liable, still it has been directed to satisfy award first and thereafter recover same from owner of offending vehicle--Recently in National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Paravatheni and another a Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred matter to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench to decide following questions:
1) If an Insurance Company can prove that it does not have any liability to pay amount in law to claimants under Motor Vehicles Act or any other enactment, can Court yet compel it to pay amount in question giving it liberty to later on recover same from owner of vehicle.
2) Can such a direction be given under Article 142 of Constitution, and what is scope of Article 142. (Para 5, 7 & 8)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
F.A.O. No. 150 of 1998 (O&M)
Devinder Kumar alias Sonu
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.
{Decided on 22/01/2010}
Present: Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate for the appellants in FAO Nos. 150, 159 and 236 of 1998 and for the driver and owner in FAO Nos. 203 and 205 of 1998.
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants in FAO Nos. 203 and 205 of 1998 and for the claimants in FAO Nos. 150, 159 and 236 of 1998.
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the Insurance Company.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Claim that appellant suffered head injury is not borne out from any evidence produced on record--She had suffered only fracture in her arm, which was plastered--On account of that, Tribunal has already awarded compensation to tune of Rs.24,600/-.--Manner, in which amount of compensation has been determined, on account of pain and sufferings, which will take care of special diet, which appellant had to take during period she remained under treatment--On account of medical treatment and loss of income for period she remained bed ridden, sufficient amount has already been awarded--Claimant not entitled to further enhancement. (Para 6)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Only oral statement of claimant that he received injury on his left eye--No medico-legal report was produced in support of claim--Evidence of some private doctor sought to be produced, which was not found to be trust worthy--Though appellant had registered a criminal case against driver of vehicle, but even in that appellant did not state before police that he had received injury in his left eye or same was completely damaged in accident--In investigation got conducted by Insurance Company, it was found that claimant had lost sight of his left eye after he got operated same--Tribunal did not find substance in claim of appellant that he suffered any damage to his eye on account of accident and finding to that effect cannot be faulted with--Appeal dismissed. (Para 12)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Valid Driving License--Liability of Insurance Company--Tribunal has found as a fact that driver of vehicle, was born on 15.10.1978--In support thereof, documents were produced from school where he was studying, which are in form of school leaving certificate, application form for admission and copy of school register etc--In all these documents, date of birth was mentioned as 15.10.1978--Date of issuance of driving licence was found as 4.1.1994 and date of accident is 28.7.1994--Two new documents, sought to be produced on record by appellants along with application for additional evidence shows that entry in register of births was got made on 22.12.1997 by showing date of birth as 4.3.1974, for which a certificate was got issued--It was after decision of claim petitions by Tribunal on 28.8.1997--A fresh certificate was got issued from school showing his date of birth as 4.3.1974, which could not possibly be relied upon considering evidence already on record from school where he was studying, which is not in form of one or two documents, rather, at four different places and one of them being application form for admission where his father had himself mentioned his date of birth as 15.10.1978--No illegality has been committed by learned Tribunal in holding that driving licence held by driver of vehicle on date of accident was not valid--Insurance Company could not be made liable to indemnify insured. (Para 18, 19 & 20)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
F.A.O. No. 150 of 1998 (O&M)
Devinder Kumar alias Sonu
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.
{Decided on 22/01/2010}
Present: Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate for the appellants in FAO Nos. 150, 159 and 236 of 1998 and for the driver and owner in FAO Nos. 203 and 205 of 1998.
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants in FAO Nos. 203 and 205 of 1998 and for the claimants in FAO Nos. 150, 159 and 236 of 1998.
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the Insurance Company.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Claim that appellant suffered head injury is not borne out from any evidence produced on record--She had suffered only fracture in her arm, which was plastered--On account of that, Tribunal has already awarded compensation to tune of Rs.24,600/-.--Manner, in which amount of compensation has been determined, on account of pain and sufferings, which will take care of special diet, which appellant had to take during period she remained under treatment--On account of medical treatment and loss of income for period she remained bed ridden, sufficient amount has already been awarded--Claimant not entitled to further enhancement. (Para 6)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Only oral statement of claimant that he received injury on his left eye--No medico-legal report was produced in support of claim--Evidence of some private doctor sought to be produced, which was not found to be trust worthy--Though appellant had registered a criminal case against driver of vehicle, but even in that appellant did not state before police that he had received injury in his left eye or same was completely damaged in accident--In investigation got conducted by Insurance Company, it was found that claimant had lost sight of his left eye after he got operated same--Tribunal did not find substance in claim of appellant that he suffered any damage to his eye on account of accident and finding to that effect cannot be faulted with--Appeal dismissed. (Para 12)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Valid Driving License--Liability of Insurance Company--Tribunal has found as a fact that driver of vehicle, was born on 15.10.1978--In support thereof, documents were produced from school where he was studying, which are in form of school leaving certificate, application form for admission and copy of school register etc--In all these documents, date of birth was mentioned as 15.10.1978--Date of issuance of driving licence was found as 4.1.1994 and date of accident is 28.7.1994--Two new documents, sought to be produced on record by appellants along with application for additional evidence shows that entry in register of births was got made on 22.12.1997 by showing date of birth as 4.3.1974, for which a certificate was got issued--It was after decision of claim petitions by Tribunal on 28.8.1997--A fresh certificate was got issued from school showing his date of birth as 4.3.1974, which could not possibly be relied upon considering evidence already on record from school where he was studying, which is not in form of one or two documents, rather, at four different places and one of them being application form for admission where his father had himself mentioned his date of birth as 15.10.1978--No illegality has been committed by learned Tribunal in holding that driving licence held by driver of vehicle on date of accident was not valid--Insurance Company could not be made liable to indemnify insured. (Para 18, 19 & 20)
Easement Act, 1882, S.52, 59 and 60
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2034
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
RSA No.2780 of 2009 (O&M)
Om Parkash & Ors.
v.
Umed Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 21/05/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate.
Easement Act, 1882, S.52, 59 and 60--License--When revocable--After death of predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs licence came to an end as it was not annexed to property in respect to which it was to be enjoyed and was also not transferable or heritable--Plaintiffs are not held to be licensees in view of fact that rights under licence are not inheritable--They are rather totally strangers to suit property and as licence in their favour is not sustainable as it is not irrevocable--Provisions of Section 59 of Act apply to facts and circumstances of these cases with full rigour as it provides that where grantor of a licence transfers property, transferee is not bound by said licence, meaning thereby that transferee is not bound by license. (Para 28 & 29)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
RSA No.2780 of 2009 (O&M)
Om Parkash & Ors.
v.
Umed Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 21/05/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate.
Easement Act, 1882, S.52, 59 and 60--License--When revocable--After death of predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs licence came to an end as it was not annexed to property in respect to which it was to be enjoyed and was also not transferable or heritable--Plaintiffs are not held to be licensees in view of fact that rights under licence are not inheritable--They are rather totally strangers to suit property and as licence in their favour is not sustainable as it is not irrevocable--Provisions of Section 59 of Act apply to facts and circumstances of these cases with full rigour as it provides that where grantor of a licence transfers property, transferee is not bound by said licence, meaning thereby that transferee is not bound by license. (Para 28 & 29)
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Temporary Injunction--Admission--At stage of interim injunction, the affidavit filed in the Court, with caveat application cannot be ignored as it contains an admission on the part of the defendants that plaintiff is in possession as a tenant.
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
CR No.1208 of 2009 (O&M)
Ajmel Singh
v.
Kulwinder Singh & Anr.
{Decided on 14/05/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
It is well settled that admission is the best mode of proof--Once a tenant always a tenant until and unless the tenancy is terminated and the tenant is evicted from the premises by an order of competent Court of law.
Temporary Injunction--Admission--At stage of interim injunction, the affidavit filed in the Court, with caveat application cannot be ignored as it contains an admission on the part of the defendants that plaintiff is in possession as a tenant.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39, R.1 and 2--Temporary Injunction--Application filed by the defendants before the trial Court under Section 148-A of the CPC, at the time of lodging caveat application along with an affidavit of the General Power of Attorney of both the respondents, it has been admitted that the plaintiff is a tenant over the shop in dispute without stating that his tenancy has been terminated or he has been evicted by any order of the competent Court of law--Therefore, at stage of interim injunction, the affidavit filed in the Court, though, with the caveat application cannot be ignored as it contains an admission on the part of the defendants that plaintiff is in possession as a tenant--It is well settled that admission is the best mode of proof--It is also well settled that once a tenant always a tenant until and unless the tenancy is terminated and the tenant is evicted from the premises by an order of competent Court of law--Learned Court below should not have directed parties to maintain status quo rather plaintiff should have granted interim injunction to restrain defendants from interfering in his possession especially when there is an allegation that they had already tried to dispossess them forcibly as defendants had come to premises in question along with their henchmen and had removed certain articles belonging to plaintiff lying in his almirah--Defendants are restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over shop in dispute till decision of the main suit. (Para 7 & 8)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
CR No.1208 of 2009 (O&M)
Ajmel Singh
v.
Kulwinder Singh & Anr.
{Decided on 14/05/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
It is well settled that admission is the best mode of proof--Once a tenant always a tenant until and unless the tenancy is terminated and the tenant is evicted from the premises by an order of competent Court of law.
Temporary Injunction--Admission--At stage of interim injunction, the affidavit filed in the Court, with caveat application cannot be ignored as it contains an admission on the part of the defendants that plaintiff is in possession as a tenant.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39, R.1 and 2--Temporary Injunction--Application filed by the defendants before the trial Court under Section 148-A of the CPC, at the time of lodging caveat application along with an affidavit of the General Power of Attorney of both the respondents, it has been admitted that the plaintiff is a tenant over the shop in dispute without stating that his tenancy has been terminated or he has been evicted by any order of the competent Court of law--Therefore, at stage of interim injunction, the affidavit filed in the Court, though, with the caveat application cannot be ignored as it contains an admission on the part of the defendants that plaintiff is in possession as a tenant--It is well settled that admission is the best mode of proof--It is also well settled that once a tenant always a tenant until and unless the tenancy is terminated and the tenant is evicted from the premises by an order of competent Court of law--Learned Court below should not have directed parties to maintain status quo rather plaintiff should have granted interim injunction to restrain defendants from interfering in his possession especially when there is an allegation that they had already tried to dispossess them forcibly as defendants had come to premises in question along with their henchmen and had removed certain articles belonging to plaintiff lying in his almirah--Defendants are restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over shop in dispute till decision of the main suit. (Para 7 & 8)
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2032 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain CR No.1208 of 2009 (O&M) Ajmel Singh v. Kulwinder Singh & Anr. {Decided on 14/05/2010} For the Petitioner: Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate. IMPORTANT POINT It is well settled that admission is the best mode of proof--Once a tenant always a tenant until and unless the tenancy is terminated and the tenant is evicted from the premises by an order of competent Court of law. Temporary Injunction--Admission--At stage of interim injunction, the affidavit filed in the Court, with caveat application cannot be ignored as it contains an admission on the part of the defendants that plaintiff is in possession as a tenant. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39, R.1 and 2--Temporary Injunction--Application filed by the defendants before the trial Court under Section 148-A of the CPC, at the time of lodging caveat application along with an affidavit of the General Power of Attorney of both the respondents, it has been admitted that the plaintiff is a tenant over the shop in dispute without stating that his tenancy has been terminated or he has been evicted by any order of the competent Court of law--Therefore, at stage of interim injunction, the affidavit filed in the Court, though, with the caveat application cannot be ignored as it contains an admission on the part of the defendants that plaintiff is in possession as a tenant--It is well settled that admission is the best mode of proof--It is also well settled that once a tenant always a tenant until and unless the tenancy is terminated and the tenant is evicted from the premises by an order of competent Court of law--Learned Court below should not have directed parties to maintain status quo rather plaintiff should have granted interim injunction to restrain defendants from interfering in his possession especially when there is an allegation that they had already tried to dispossess them forcibly as defendants had come to premises in question along with their henchmen and had removed certain articles belonging to plaintiff lying in his almirah--Defendants are restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over shop in dispute till decision of the main suit. (Para 7 & 8)
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, S.76 and 89
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
FAO No.492 of 2010 (O&M)
Amrik Singh
v.
Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur & Ors.
{Decided on 05/05/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. H.S.Sethi, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.4 to 6: Mrs. K.K. Kahlon, Advocate.
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, S.76 and 89--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.5 R.17--Election of Sarpanch--Notice of meeting--Service of notice--Summons bear the endorsement of serving officer that appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have refused to take summons which were served upon them for purpose of attending meeting dated 19.7.2008--CPC provides a procedure in case of refusal of service of summons by defendant--In case defendant refused to sign acknowledgment, serving officer shall affix a copy of summon on outer door or some conspicuous place of his house in which defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain--No such procedure has been adopted by serving officer--Procedure carried out on 19.7.2008 in which members of minority group have elected Sarpanch on basis of report of refusal of summons by appellant and respondent No. 4 to 6 has to be set aside--Deputy Commissioner directed to hold fresh meeting for purpose of election of Sarpanch, after giving due notice to all concerned in accordance with law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
FAO No.492 of 2010 (O&M)
Amrik Singh
v.
Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur & Ors.
{Decided on 05/05/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. H.S.Sethi, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.4 to 6: Mrs. K.K. Kahlon, Advocate.
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, S.76 and 89--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.5 R.17--Election of Sarpanch--Notice of meeting--Service of notice--Summons bear the endorsement of serving officer that appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have refused to take summons which were served upon them for purpose of attending meeting dated 19.7.2008--CPC provides a procedure in case of refusal of service of summons by defendant--In case defendant refused to sign acknowledgment, serving officer shall affix a copy of summon on outer door or some conspicuous place of his house in which defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain--No such procedure has been adopted by serving officer--Procedure carried out on 19.7.2008 in which members of minority group have elected Sarpanch on basis of report of refusal of summons by appellant and respondent No. 4 to 6 has to be set aside--Deputy Commissioner directed to hold fresh meeting for purpose of election of Sarpanch, after giving due notice to all concerned in accordance with law.
Accident--Compensation--While defining pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including age, unusual deprivation he has suffered and affect thereof on his future. Accident--Deceased was house wife--Courts while taking into consideration entire circumstances should asses value of their services rendered to family--While assessing her income @ Rs.1000/- per month as she was rendering services towards family worth Rs.1000/-, no deduction requires to be made qua her own dependency.
D.S. Jaspal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
F.A.O. No. 179 of 1990
D.S. Jaspal & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 20/04/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. A.S. Chahal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab.
IMPORTANT POINT
Accident--Compensation--While defining pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including age, unusual deprivation he has suffered and affect thereof on his future.
Accident--Deceased was house wife--Courts while taking into consideration entire circumstances should asses value of their services rendered to family--While assessing her income @ Rs.1000/- per month as she was rendering services towards family worth Rs.1000/-, no deduction requires to be made qua her own dependency.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Negligence--Accident not denied--Specific case set up that due to failure of brakes he could not control bus--Bus was coming from hilly area, therefore, certainly, it must have started with a pre-check up of whole machinery including brakes--Driver has admitted that during journey brakes of bus were in order--Mechanical report showing failure of brakes has not been proved--Driver must have applied brakes on earlier occasions even while crossing railway track--It is not his case that brakes were not working at that time--Thus, it does not appeal to reasons that brakes had failed only at juncture where he was also to stop bus for traffic checking on barrier--From consistent testimony of injured witnesses as well as from circumstances of case, an inescapable conclusion could be arrived that driver was driving bus at high speed, having failed to control same, it dashed in to a car causing one casualty, rendering three occupants as seriously injured--Photographs reveal that car has been completely smashed therefore speed of bus could be well assessed--Plea that bus was being driven at speed of 5-6 kms per hour--No tenable. (Para 18)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Determination of--Principle of determination of compensation was considered on rule of restitution in intergrum which means that compensation is measured at cost of repair or repairing original position applies only when if and so far as original position can be restored--If not possible, Tribunal must endeavour to give fair equivalent in money--Bodily injury shall be treated as deprivation which entitled claimant to damages--Compensation awarded should not be token but should be an adequate and reasonable to achieve statutory goal. (Para 24)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--While defining pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including age, unusual deprivation he has suffered and affect thereof on his future. (Para 26)
(D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Calculation--Claimant remained admitted in P.G.I. for two months with an advice of a second operation for hip fracture of left hip bone--He continued attending hospital as an out door patient for two months after his discharge from hospital--Due to hip fracture, he could not lift his left leg nor could he drive four wheeler--He spent about Rs.6000/- on medicines and Rs.5000/- on special diet--He needed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for operation of hip fracture in Sweden--He remained away from job for three months and suffered loss of Rs.9000/-.--According to doctor, there was dis-location of both hips and he was operated upon on 14.4.1987--Also testified that he was advised physiotherapy till 18.7.1987 and on 10.11.1987, he determined his disability as 20% because he was having difficulty in lifting his left lower limb--Compensation awarded under different heads for which Tribunal not awarded any compensation--Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000 from Rs. 1,20,000--Claimant is entitled to interest from date of application till realization. (Para 28)
(E) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Calculation--According to medical evidence claimant suffered permanent partial disability to extent of 40%--Her leg was shortened by 1- ½ inches--Injured was 31 years of age at time of accident--As per Sarla Verma’s case multiplier of 18 should be applied--Therefore, Tribunal should have awarded a sum of Rs.51840/- on account of permanent disability suffered by her instead of Rs.43200/-.--Claimant is entitled to compensation to tune of Rs.1,74,000/-.
(F) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Non-pecuniary loss--Claimant was having injury on his left wrist for which plaster was applied--Thereafter, he was admitted in hospital again on 22.5.1987 for his operation qua fracture of corpal bone of left wrist--Again he was put under plaster for three months--Injured suffered permanent partial disability as 35%--Since doctor has no where stated that claimant was in any way incapacitated to work for whole of his life and was unable to perform his job, no pecuniary loss could be assessed, but, while calculating non-pecuniary loss, compensation awarded enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. (Para 32, 34 & 35)
(G) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Deceased was house wife--Courts while taking into consideration entire circumstances should asses value of their services rendered to family--Appellant was spending Rs.1000/- per month for maintaining her children, cooking food and to leave children to school and then certainly her notional income even in absence of any data and taking into consideration his multifarious services and duties rendered to family could be assessed at Rs.1000/- per month--
Though in case Lata Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar and others assessed notinal income of a house wife @ Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum, keeping in view that accident took place in year 1987 and value of money was higher at that time, income of deceased assessed @ Rs.1000/- and per month Rs.12,000/- per annum--Thus, while assessing her income @ Rs.1000/- per month as she was rendering services towards family worth Rs.1000/-, no deduction requires to be made qua her own dependency--Deceased was 29 years old and was very active in life, maintaining whole of family including her husband and children--Multiplier of 18 to be applied--Claimants would be entitled to receive compensation to tune of Rs.2,16,000/-.--Besides, claimants who are husband and children are also to some amount of compensation on account of lose of love and affection and consortium, therefore, a sum of Rs.14,000/- is awarded on these heads--Claimants would be entitled to receive compensation to tune of Rs.2,30,000/-. (Para 36)
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
F.A.O. No. 179 of 1990
D.S. Jaspal & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 20/04/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. A.S. Chahal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab.
IMPORTANT POINT
Accident--Compensation--While defining pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including age, unusual deprivation he has suffered and affect thereof on his future.
Accident--Deceased was house wife--Courts while taking into consideration entire circumstances should asses value of their services rendered to family--While assessing her income @ Rs.1000/- per month as she was rendering services towards family worth Rs.1000/-, no deduction requires to be made qua her own dependency.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Negligence--Accident not denied--Specific case set up that due to failure of brakes he could not control bus--Bus was coming from hilly area, therefore, certainly, it must have started with a pre-check up of whole machinery including brakes--Driver has admitted that during journey brakes of bus were in order--Mechanical report showing failure of brakes has not been proved--Driver must have applied brakes on earlier occasions even while crossing railway track--It is not his case that brakes were not working at that time--Thus, it does not appeal to reasons that brakes had failed only at juncture where he was also to stop bus for traffic checking on barrier--From consistent testimony of injured witnesses as well as from circumstances of case, an inescapable conclusion could be arrived that driver was driving bus at high speed, having failed to control same, it dashed in to a car causing one casualty, rendering three occupants as seriously injured--Photographs reveal that car has been completely smashed therefore speed of bus could be well assessed--Plea that bus was being driven at speed of 5-6 kms per hour--No tenable. (Para 18)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Determination of--Principle of determination of compensation was considered on rule of restitution in intergrum which means that compensation is measured at cost of repair or repairing original position applies only when if and so far as original position can be restored--If not possible, Tribunal must endeavour to give fair equivalent in money--Bodily injury shall be treated as deprivation which entitled claimant to damages--Compensation awarded should not be token but should be an adequate and reasonable to achieve statutory goal. (Para 24)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--While defining pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including age, unusual deprivation he has suffered and affect thereof on his future. (Para 26)
(D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Calculation--Claimant remained admitted in P.G.I. for two months with an advice of a second operation for hip fracture of left hip bone--He continued attending hospital as an out door patient for two months after his discharge from hospital--Due to hip fracture, he could not lift his left leg nor could he drive four wheeler--He spent about Rs.6000/- on medicines and Rs.5000/- on special diet--He needed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for operation of hip fracture in Sweden--He remained away from job for three months and suffered loss of Rs.9000/-.--According to doctor, there was dis-location of both hips and he was operated upon on 14.4.1987--Also testified that he was advised physiotherapy till 18.7.1987 and on 10.11.1987, he determined his disability as 20% because he was having difficulty in lifting his left lower limb--Compensation awarded under different heads for which Tribunal not awarded any compensation--Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000 from Rs. 1,20,000--Claimant is entitled to interest from date of application till realization. (Para 28)
(E) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Calculation--According to medical evidence claimant suffered permanent partial disability to extent of 40%--Her leg was shortened by 1- ½ inches--Injured was 31 years of age at time of accident--As per Sarla Verma’s case multiplier of 18 should be applied--Therefore, Tribunal should have awarded a sum of Rs.51840/- on account of permanent disability suffered by her instead of Rs.43200/-.--Claimant is entitled to compensation to tune of Rs.1,74,000/-.
(F) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Non-pecuniary loss--Claimant was having injury on his left wrist for which plaster was applied--Thereafter, he was admitted in hospital again on 22.5.1987 for his operation qua fracture of corpal bone of left wrist--Again he was put under plaster for three months--Injured suffered permanent partial disability as 35%--Since doctor has no where stated that claimant was in any way incapacitated to work for whole of his life and was unable to perform his job, no pecuniary loss could be assessed, but, while calculating non-pecuniary loss, compensation awarded enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. (Para 32, 34 & 35)
(G) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Deceased was house wife--Courts while taking into consideration entire circumstances should asses value of their services rendered to family--Appellant was spending Rs.1000/- per month for maintaining her children, cooking food and to leave children to school and then certainly her notional income even in absence of any data and taking into consideration his multifarious services and duties rendered to family could be assessed at Rs.1000/- per month--
Though in case Lata Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar and others assessed notinal income of a house wife @ Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum, keeping in view that accident took place in year 1987 and value of money was higher at that time, income of deceased assessed @ Rs.1000/- and per month Rs.12,000/- per annum--Thus, while assessing her income @ Rs.1000/- per month as she was rendering services towards family worth Rs.1000/-, no deduction requires to be made qua her own dependency--Deceased was 29 years old and was very active in life, maintaining whole of family including her husband and children--Multiplier of 18 to be applied--Claimants would be entitled to receive compensation to tune of Rs.2,16,000/-.--Besides, claimants who are husband and children are also to some amount of compensation on account of lose of love and affection and consortium, therefore, a sum of Rs.14,000/- is awarded on these heads--Claimants would be entitled to receive compensation to tune of Rs.2,30,000/-. (Para 36)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.106
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
RSA No.2578 of 2002
M/s Ram Murti & Sons & Anr.
v.
Punjab Wakf Board & Ors.
{Decided on 28/05/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr.M.L.Sarin Sr.Advocate, Advocate, with Mr.Nitin Sarin, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.1: Mr. S.K. Pipat Sr., Advocate, with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3: Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate.
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.106--Punjab Wakf Act, 1995, S. 56--Possession--Whether Section 56 of Punjab Wakf Act, could have retrospective effect to determine lease executed in 1978--NO--Held, that provisions of Section 56 of Punjab Wakf Act, were not applicable to lease executed in favour of defendants/appellants in 1978 nor it was governed by Section 56 of Act, but by terms of lease deed as Section 36 of 1954 Act was not enforced. (Para 50 & 55)
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.106--Possession--Whether there was any violation of provisions by Secretary of Board in granting sanction for construction or in alternative whether acts of Secretary stood rectified by necessary implication as defendants were allowed to continue in his possession on payment of enhanced rent--Lease deed in favour of defendants/appellants was not void, as after execution of lease deed defendants/appellants were allowed to raise construction and Board accepted rent at revised rate till 1985 i.e. after expiry of lease period--There was thus, implied consent of Board to lease executed by secretary to Board, action of secretary stood rectified. (Para 50 & 56)
(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.106--Possession--It is always open to courts to grant lesser relief than claimed, in facts and circumstances of case--Decree of learned lower appellate court, cannot be said to be bad merely because in a suit for possession along with superstructure, learned lower appellate court had decreed suit for possession by directing defendants/appellants to hand over possession of plot leased out, after removing malba which belonged to defendants/appellants. (Para 50 & 74)
(D) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.106--Possession--Notice--Notice of termination of lease, cannot be said to be bad in law as by raising additional construction over and above shops and stair qua which permission was given, defendants-appellants violated specific terms of lease deed--Furthermore, as per amended law, defendants/appellants could not be allowed to continue even though amended law was not retrospective in operation, but by way of specific term, defendants/appellants had agreed to abide by any change in law--Notice cannot be said to be invalid so as to hold that lease deed continued to subsist--Owner under general law is competent to seek eviction of lessee by issuing notice of termination of lease--Appeal dismissed. (Para 50, 75 & 76)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
RSA No.2578 of 2002
M/s Ram Murti & Sons & Anr.
v.
Punjab Wakf Board & Ors.
{Decided on 28/05/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr.M.L.Sarin Sr.Advocate, Advocate, with Mr.Nitin Sarin, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.1: Mr. S.K. Pipat Sr., Advocate, with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3: Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate.
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.106--Punjab Wakf Act, 1995, S. 56--Possession--Whether Section 56 of Punjab Wakf Act, could have retrospective effect to determine lease executed in 1978--NO--Held, that provisions of Section 56 of Punjab Wakf Act, were not applicable to lease executed in favour of defendants/appellants in 1978 nor it was governed by Section 56 of Act, but by terms of lease deed as Section 36 of 1954 Act was not enforced. (Para 50 & 55)
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.106--Possession--Whether there was any violation of provisions by Secretary of Board in granting sanction for construction or in alternative whether acts of Secretary stood rectified by necessary implication as defendants were allowed to continue in his possession on payment of enhanced rent--Lease deed in favour of defendants/appellants was not void, as after execution of lease deed defendants/appellants were allowed to raise construction and Board accepted rent at revised rate till 1985 i.e. after expiry of lease period--There was thus, implied consent of Board to lease executed by secretary to Board, action of secretary stood rectified. (Para 50 & 56)
(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.106--Possession--It is always open to courts to grant lesser relief than claimed, in facts and circumstances of case--Decree of learned lower appellate court, cannot be said to be bad merely because in a suit for possession along with superstructure, learned lower appellate court had decreed suit for possession by directing defendants/appellants to hand over possession of plot leased out, after removing malba which belonged to defendants/appellants. (Para 50 & 74)
(D) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.106--Possession--Notice--Notice of termination of lease, cannot be said to be bad in law as by raising additional construction over and above shops and stair qua which permission was given, defendants-appellants violated specific terms of lease deed--Furthermore, as per amended law, defendants/appellants could not be allowed to continue even though amended law was not retrospective in operation, but by way of specific term, defendants/appellants had agreed to abide by any change in law--Notice cannot be said to be invalid so as to hold that lease deed continued to subsist--Owner under general law is competent to seek eviction of lessee by issuing notice of termination of lease--Appeal dismissed. (Para 50, 75 & 76)
Special Leave Petition--Dismissal of--An order rejecting the Special Leave Petition at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent.
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (SC) 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[VACATION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar
Civil Appeal No. 5292 of 2004
Fuljit Kaur
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 03/06/2010}
For the Petitioner/Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Sarin and Mr. Ashok Mathur, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar and Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate
(A) Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965--Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964--Allotment of residential plot--Appellant made an application on 23.02.1987 for allotment of a residential plot--Administration issued the allotment letter in favour of the appellant within 48 hours of submission of application making it clear that as the proper calculation could not be made and tentative price had not been determined, the allottee has to deposit provisional price of Rs. 93000/-. Subsequently additional demand of Rs. 2,19,000/- was made, however, instead of depositing the said amount, appellant challenged the said Demand Notice contending that the additional demand was arbitrary and unreasonable--However, the said writ petition been dismissed by the High Court-- Appeal--High Court considered all statutory provisions and calculations made by the respondents as under what circumstances the "tentative- price" had been fixed and concluded that the demand was justified--Nothing produced on record to show that the tentative price determined by the State could be unreasonable--Even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (Paras 8, 15, 26 & 27)
(B) Constitution of India, 1950--Special Leave Petition--Dismissal of Special Leave Petition in limine--Whether an order of withdrawal passed by Supreme Court amounts to confirmation/approval of the judgment and order of the High Court--Held that an order rejecting the Special Leave Petition at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. (Para 8)
(C) Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14--Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965--Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964--Land & Property--Allotment of residential plot--Legality--Unique case which reveals that an influential person can have allotment of a residential plot in discretionary quota within 48 hours of submission of application and then assert in Court that she has a right to have a land on a throwaway price and not to deposit the sale price for quarter of a century--Allotment had been made to the appellant within 48 hours of submission of her application though in ordinary cases, it takes about a year--Appellant had further been favoured to pay the provisional price of Rs. 93,000/- in four installments in two years--Making the allotment in such a hasty manner itself is arbitrary and unreasonable and is hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution--Appeal dismissed. (Para 16)
(D) Words and Phrases--"Tentative price" means the price determined by the State Government from time to time in respect of a sale of site by allotment and while doing so, the Government has to take into consideration various factors including the amount paid as compensation
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[VACATION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar
Civil Appeal No. 5292 of 2004
Fuljit Kaur
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 03/06/2010}
For the Petitioner/Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Sarin and Mr. Ashok Mathur, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar and Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate
(A) Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965--Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964--Allotment of residential plot--Appellant made an application on 23.02.1987 for allotment of a residential plot--Administration issued the allotment letter in favour of the appellant within 48 hours of submission of application making it clear that as the proper calculation could not be made and tentative price had not been determined, the allottee has to deposit provisional price of Rs. 93000/-. Subsequently additional demand of Rs. 2,19,000/- was made, however, instead of depositing the said amount, appellant challenged the said Demand Notice contending that the additional demand was arbitrary and unreasonable--However, the said writ petition been dismissed by the High Court-- Appeal--High Court considered all statutory provisions and calculations made by the respondents as under what circumstances the "tentative- price" had been fixed and concluded that the demand was justified--Nothing produced on record to show that the tentative price determined by the State could be unreasonable--Even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (Paras 8, 15, 26 & 27)
(B) Constitution of India, 1950--Special Leave Petition--Dismissal of Special Leave Petition in limine--Whether an order of withdrawal passed by Supreme Court amounts to confirmation/approval of the judgment and order of the High Court--Held that an order rejecting the Special Leave Petition at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. (Para 8)
(C) Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14--Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965--Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964--Land & Property--Allotment of residential plot--Legality--Unique case which reveals that an influential person can have allotment of a residential plot in discretionary quota within 48 hours of submission of application and then assert in Court that she has a right to have a land on a throwaway price and not to deposit the sale price for quarter of a century--Allotment had been made to the appellant within 48 hours of submission of her application though in ordinary cases, it takes about a year--Appellant had further been favoured to pay the provisional price of Rs. 93,000/- in four installments in two years--Making the allotment in such a hasty manner itself is arbitrary and unreasonable and is hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution--Appeal dismissed. (Para 16)
(D) Words and Phrases--"Tentative price" means the price determined by the State Government from time to time in respect of a sale of site by allotment and while doing so, the Government has to take into consideration various factors including the amount paid as compensation
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Accident--Limitation--Claim petition filed after deletion of Sub-section 3 of S.166 of 1988 Act for claiming compensation arising out of an accident which had taken place before enforcement of 1988 Act on 1.7.89 could not be dismissed as time barred. Accident--Claim Petition--Dismissed-in-default--Fresh Petition--Not maintainable.
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 990
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
FAO No. 290 of 1989 (O&M)
Smt. Gul Devi & Anr.
v.
Surjit Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 09/03/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate.
For the Insurance Company; Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Accident--Limitation--Claim petition filed after deletion of Sub-section 3 of S.166 of 1988 Act for claiming compensation arising out of an accident which had taken place before enforcement of 1988 Act on 1.7.89 could not be dismissed as time barred.
Accident--Claim Petition--Dismissed-in-default--Fresh Petition--Not maintainable.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 & 58(6)--Claim Petition--Limitation--Whether claim petition filed after deletion of Sub-section 3 of S.166 of 1988 Act for claiming compensation arising out of an accident which had taken place before enforcement of 1988 Act on 1.7.89 could be dismissed as time barred--Held,NO
Issue stands authoritatively concluded by Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that even in the cases where the accident had taken place when the 1939 Act was in force and a claim petition had been filed after the enforcement of the 1988 Act, especially after the deletion of Sub-section 3 Section 166 of the 1988 Act, the claim petition cannot be dismissed on account of limitation--It was opined considering the fact that it was a piece of beneficial legislation, where mere delay should not be a ground to non-suit the claimant, who may have lost the bread earner of the family or suffered grievous injuries--In fact, to take care of such situation and also delay in filing of claim petitions and also the disposal thereof, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Jai Parkash’s case has issued certain directions to the police authorities as well as the Tribunals in the country to take steps strictly in terms of Section 158(6) of the 1988 Act by recording the Accident Information Report in Form No. 54 and submitting the same to the concerned Tribunal within 30 days of the registration of FIR mentioning requisite details therein--The Tribunals have also been directed to consider such reports as claim applications under Section 166 of the 1988 Act and decide without waiting for formal claim petitions. (Para 9, 15 & 16)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Claim Petition--Dismissed-in-default--Fresh Petition--Not maintainable--Earlier Petition filed by father of deceased dismissed in default--No further proceedings initiated to get that petition restored--Fresh petition filed on his behalf not maintainable--Once claim on his behalf is dismissed, apportionment on account of compensation in his favour will also go. (Para 17)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Mother of deceased granted compensation of Rs. 40,000/--She is also entitled Rs.10,000/- on account of transportation, funeral expenses, loss of estate etc.--She is also entitled to interest @ 6% from date of filing of claim petition till realization of amount. (Para 18)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
FAO No. 290 of 1989 (O&M)
Smt. Gul Devi & Anr.
v.
Surjit Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 09/03/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate.
For the Insurance Company; Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Accident--Limitation--Claim petition filed after deletion of Sub-section 3 of S.166 of 1988 Act for claiming compensation arising out of an accident which had taken place before enforcement of 1988 Act on 1.7.89 could not be dismissed as time barred.
Accident--Claim Petition--Dismissed-in-default--Fresh Petition--Not maintainable.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 & 58(6)--Claim Petition--Limitation--Whether claim petition filed after deletion of Sub-section 3 of S.166 of 1988 Act for claiming compensation arising out of an accident which had taken place before enforcement of 1988 Act on 1.7.89 could be dismissed as time barred--Held,NO
Issue stands authoritatively concluded by Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that even in the cases where the accident had taken place when the 1939 Act was in force and a claim petition had been filed after the enforcement of the 1988 Act, especially after the deletion of Sub-section 3 Section 166 of the 1988 Act, the claim petition cannot be dismissed on account of limitation--It was opined considering the fact that it was a piece of beneficial legislation, where mere delay should not be a ground to non-suit the claimant, who may have lost the bread earner of the family or suffered grievous injuries--In fact, to take care of such situation and also delay in filing of claim petitions and also the disposal thereof, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Jai Parkash’s case has issued certain directions to the police authorities as well as the Tribunals in the country to take steps strictly in terms of Section 158(6) of the 1988 Act by recording the Accident Information Report in Form No. 54 and submitting the same to the concerned Tribunal within 30 days of the registration of FIR mentioning requisite details therein--The Tribunals have also been directed to consider such reports as claim applications under Section 166 of the 1988 Act and decide without waiting for formal claim petitions. (Para 9, 15 & 16)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Claim Petition--Dismissed-in-default--Fresh Petition--Not maintainable--Earlier Petition filed by father of deceased dismissed in default--No further proceedings initiated to get that petition restored--Fresh petition filed on his behalf not maintainable--Once claim on his behalf is dismissed, apportionment on account of compensation in his favour will also go. (Para 17)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Mother of deceased granted compensation of Rs. 40,000/--She is also entitled Rs.10,000/- on account of transportation, funeral expenses, loss of estate etc.--She is also entitled to interest @ 6% from date of filing of claim petition till realization of amount. (Para 18)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.17, R.1
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Civil Revision No.429 of 2010
Gurpreet Singh
v.
Satpal Nirmal & Ors.
{Decided on 15/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4: Mr. Anant Kataria, Advocate.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.17, R.1--Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21--Administration of justice--Speedy disposal--Civil dispute--Issues were framed on 23.10.2002--Case was not fixed for leading evidence--Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of one year. (Para 2 & 4)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Civil Revision No.429 of 2010
Gurpreet Singh
v.
Satpal Nirmal & Ors.
{Decided on 15/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4: Mr. Anant Kataria, Advocate.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.17, R.1--Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21--Administration of justice--Speedy disposal--Civil dispute--Issues were framed on 23.10.2002--Case was not fixed for leading evidence--Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of one year. (Para 2 & 4)
Gift--Oral Gift--Validity of--Gift of immovable property which is not registered is bad in law and cannot pass any title to donee.
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 986
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
RSA No.364 of 1981(O&M)
Makhan Singh
v.
Joginder Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 11/03/2010}
For the Appellant: Ms. Simran Chahal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Gift--Oral Gift--Validity of--Gift of immovable property which is not registered is bad in law and cannot pass any title to donee.
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.123--Oral Gift--Validity of--Gift of immovable property which is not registered is bad in law and cannot pass any title to donee--Any wrong concession given by counsel of plaintiff/appellant before First Appellate Court cannot confer any title in favour of defendants pursuant to alleged gift which in eye of law is void ab initio and nonest. (Para 16 & 18)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872, S.115--Estoppel--Wrong concession on question of law made by counsel is not binding on his client. (Para 17)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
RSA No.364 of 1981(O&M)
Makhan Singh
v.
Joginder Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 11/03/2010}
For the Appellant: Ms. Simran Chahal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Gift--Oral Gift--Validity of--Gift of immovable property which is not registered is bad in law and cannot pass any title to donee.
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.123--Oral Gift--Validity of--Gift of immovable property which is not registered is bad in law and cannot pass any title to donee--Any wrong concession given by counsel of plaintiff/appellant before First Appellate Court cannot confer any title in favour of defendants pursuant to alleged gift which in eye of law is void ab initio and nonest. (Para 16 & 18)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872, S.115--Estoppel--Wrong concession on question of law made by counsel is not binding on his client. (Para 17)
Succession Act, 1925
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 984
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
C.R. No. 1163 of 2010
Madan Lal
v.
Nirmal Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 23/02/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suryakant Gautam, Advocate.
Succession Act, 1925-Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.18, R.3--Evidence At, 1872, S.106--Rebuttal Evidence--Burden of Proof--Will--Claim for right of inheritance to estate of deceased on basis of natural succession--Plaintiff also pleaded that deceased never executed any Will during his lifetime and alleged Will claimed by defendant is resulted of fraud and misrepresentation--Defendant pleaded execution of will by deceased--Therefore plaintiff has right in rebuttal to lead evidence to prove that Will was in fact never executed by deceased and plaintiff can examine finger print expert for this purpose. (Para 8,9 & 10)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
C.R. No. 1163 of 2010
Madan Lal
v.
Nirmal Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 23/02/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suryakant Gautam, Advocate.
Succession Act, 1925-Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.18, R.3--Evidence At, 1872, S.106--Rebuttal Evidence--Burden of Proof--Will--Claim for right of inheritance to estate of deceased on basis of natural succession--Plaintiff also pleaded that deceased never executed any Will during his lifetime and alleged Will claimed by defendant is resulted of fraud and misrepresentation--Defendant pleaded execution of will by deceased--Therefore plaintiff has right in rebuttal to lead evidence to prove that Will was in fact never executed by deceased and plaintiff can examine finger print expert for this purpose. (Para 8,9 & 10)
Rejection of plaint--Plaint cannot rejected on ground that ad-valorem court fee on market value of suit property was not paid
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 982
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Civil Revision No. 6115 of 2009
Satpal & Anr.
v.
Radhey Shyam & Ors.
{Decided on 04/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. GS Punia, Advocate.
For the Respondent nos. 1 and 2: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate,
For he Remaining Respondents: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Rejection of plaint--Plaint cannot rejected on ground that ad-valorem court fee on market value of suit property was not paid
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 7, R.11--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 6 R.17--Rejection of plaint--Amendment of plaint--Plaintiffs sought relief of joint possession of suit property to extent of half share and sought partition of suit property and permanent injunction--Plaint cannot be rejected because plaintiffs have pleaded that they are owners and in joint possession of property to extent of half share--Moreover, Plaintiffs clarified their position in reply to application as to how they became owners of half share of suit property--Even according to jamabandi plaintiff no. 1 has share in suit property--Plaintiff no. 2 claims to have got share in suit by way of gift and entry to their effect is also made in jamabandi--Consequently plaintiffs have been rightly allowed to amend plaint to this effect--However plaintiffs are subjected to cost RS.2000/- for amendment of plaint. (Para 6)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 7, R.11--Rejection of plaint--Plaint cannot rejected on ground that ad-valorem court fee on market value of suit property was not paid--Issue of valuation of court fee can be decided only after framing of issue and recording of evidence. (Para 7)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Civil Revision No. 6115 of 2009
Satpal & Anr.
v.
Radhey Shyam & Ors.
{Decided on 04/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. GS Punia, Advocate.
For the Respondent nos. 1 and 2: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate,
For he Remaining Respondents: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Rejection of plaint--Plaint cannot rejected on ground that ad-valorem court fee on market value of suit property was not paid
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 7, R.11--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 6 R.17--Rejection of plaint--Amendment of plaint--Plaintiffs sought relief of joint possession of suit property to extent of half share and sought partition of suit property and permanent injunction--Plaint cannot be rejected because plaintiffs have pleaded that they are owners and in joint possession of property to extent of half share--Moreover, Plaintiffs clarified their position in reply to application as to how they became owners of half share of suit property--Even according to jamabandi plaintiff no. 1 has share in suit property--Plaintiff no. 2 claims to have got share in suit by way of gift and entry to their effect is also made in jamabandi--Consequently plaintiffs have been rightly allowed to amend plaint to this effect--However plaintiffs are subjected to cost RS.2000/- for amendment of plaint. (Para 6)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 7, R.11--Rejection of plaint--Plaint cannot rejected on ground that ad-valorem court fee on market value of suit property was not paid--Issue of valuation of court fee can be decided only after framing of issue and recording of evidence. (Para 7)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 981
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
RSA No.2632 of 2009 (O & M)
Mukhtiar Singh
v.
Harbhajan Singh
{Decided on 16/03/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100--Money suit--Second appeal--Execution of pronote--Allegations of fraud & misrepresentation--Execution of pronote & receipt duly proved--Mere denial of defendant is not sufficient to rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence. (Para 4)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.34--Money Suit--Interest--Contractual transaction--Defendant agreed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on loan amount--Courts below awarded interest @ 12.5% only--No fault can be found on the question of interest. (Para 5)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
RSA No.2632 of 2009 (O & M)
Mukhtiar Singh
v.
Harbhajan Singh
{Decided on 16/03/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100--Money suit--Second appeal--Execution of pronote--Allegations of fraud & misrepresentation--Execution of pronote & receipt duly proved--Mere denial of defendant is not sufficient to rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence. (Para 4)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.34--Money Suit--Interest--Contractual transaction--Defendant agreed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on loan amount--Courts below awarded interest @ 12.5% only--No fault can be found on the question of interest. (Para 5)
Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, S.3
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 980
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
CRA No. M 464-SB of 2009 (O&M)
Balwant Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 17/02/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate.
For the Respondent State: Mr. B B S Teji, AAG, Punjab.
Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, S.3--Conviction--Compromise--Allegation levelled in complaint that appellant used contemptuous language--Parties compromised matter with intervention of respectable of village--Dispute totally personal in nature--Compromise accepted--Conviction set-aside--Appellant acquitted. (Para 7, 8 & 9)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
CRA No. M 464-SB of 2009 (O&M)
Balwant Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 17/02/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate.
For the Respondent State: Mr. B B S Teji, AAG, Punjab.
Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, S.3--Conviction--Compromise--Allegation levelled in complaint that appellant used contemptuous language--Parties compromised matter with intervention of respectable of village--Dispute totally personal in nature--Compromise accepted--Conviction set-aside--Appellant acquitted. (Para 7, 8 & 9)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439(1)
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 978
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-36803 of 2009
Bijender @ Kaka
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 04/03/2010}
For the Petitioner(In Crl. Misc. No. M- 36803 of 2009): The Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate
For the Petitioner (in Crl. Misc. No. M-1357 of 2010): Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Paramjit Batta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439(1)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 342, 365, 392, 397 and 120-B--Bail--Attempt to murder--Petitioners could not be arrested during investigation and declared proclaimed offender--Other accused tried by court were acquitted as complainant and her husband turned volte-face and resiled from their previous statement--Prosecution relying upon same evidence against petitioner--Nothing to show that they had knowledge of registration of FIR against them--Petitioners released on bail. (Para 5, 6 & 7)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-36803 of 2009
Bijender @ Kaka
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 04/03/2010}
For the Petitioner(In Crl. Misc. No. M- 36803 of 2009): The Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate
For the Petitioner (in Crl. Misc. No. M-1357 of 2010): Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Paramjit Batta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439(1)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 342, 365, 392, 397 and 120-B--Bail--Attempt to murder--Petitioners could not be arrested during investigation and declared proclaimed offender--Other accused tried by court were acquitted as complainant and her husband turned volte-face and resiled from their previous statement--Prosecution relying upon same evidence against petitioner--Nothing to show that they had knowledge of registration of FIR against them--Petitioners released on bail. (Para 5, 6 & 7)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 977
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ram Chand Gupta
Crl. M.No. M- 28807 of 2009 (O&M)
Karnail Singh & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 08/03/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr.H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A and 406--Cruelty to wife--Anticipatory Bail--Demand of dowry--Petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant joined investigation--They are no more required for any custodial interrogation--Husband of complainant already arrested and released on bail--No allegations that petitioners are likely to abscond or to dissuade witnesses from deposing true facts--Interim bail granted confirmed subject to compliance of conditions contained in S.438(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 5, 7 & 8)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ram Chand Gupta
Crl. M.No. M- 28807 of 2009 (O&M)
Karnail Singh & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 08/03/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr.H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A and 406--Cruelty to wife--Anticipatory Bail--Demand of dowry--Petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant joined investigation--They are no more required for any custodial interrogation--Husband of complainant already arrested and released on bail--No allegations that petitioners are likely to abscond or to dissuade witnesses from deposing true facts--Interim bail granted confirmed subject to compliance of conditions contained in S.438(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 5, 7 & 8)
Second Appeal--High Court while hearing the second appeal can go into the question of fact when material is already available on the record
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 972
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
RSA No.1776 of 1982
Balbir Singh & Ors.
v.
Rajinder Parshad & Ors.
{Decided on 23/02/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. J. K. Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Second Appeal--High Court while hearing the second appeal can go into the question of fact when material is already available on the record
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.58 & 60--Evidence Act, 1872, S.91 & 92--Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913--Reliance of evidence to contradict contents of registered mortgage deed--Suit for redemption of mortgage--Father of defendant no. 3, alleged tenant, was one of the party to the mortgage deed--Neither mortgagor i.e. defendants No.7 to 11, from whom defendant No.3 alleges to have taken property on lease, nor defendant No.2, who is father of the defendant No.3, had come in the witness box, to explain that in fact defendant No.3 was tenant in actual physical possession prior to the execution of the mortgage--Any evidence led by defendant No.3, is not admissible in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act to disprove the contents of the document. (Para 15)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872, S.91 & 92--Reliance of evidence to contradict contents of registered mortgage deed--Oral evidence sometime is permissible to explain the contents, terms and conditions of the deed when language is ambiguous and needs explanation--However, if language is not ambiguous, vague and need no explanation and both the parties to the documents do not challenge it, then no evidence is permissible to prove otherwise. (Para 15)
(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.58 & 60--Evidence Act, 1872, S.91 & 92--Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913--Suit for redemption of mortgage--Neither defendant nos.7 to 11, original mortgagors, nor defendant Nos.1 and 2, original mortgagees, came into the witness box to state that defendant No.3 son of defendant No.2 was inducted as tenant and was in actual physical possession over the property in dispute, even prior to the date of mortgage--Merely because defendant Nos.7 to 11 who after selling the property to the plaintiffs had no more interest in the property, support the claim of defendant No.3 in the written statement does not amount to legal proof of the factum of tenancy without coming into the witness box. (Para 17)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100 & 103--Second Appeal--Power of High Court to determine issue of fact--High Court while hearing the second appeal can go into the question of fact when material is already available on the record.
(E) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.58 & 60--Evidence Act, 1872, S.91 & 92--Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913--Suit for redemption of mortgage--Neither mortgagor, alleged landlord, defendant Nos.7 to 11, nor mortgagee, father of the defendant No.3, entered into the witness box to support the claim of the defendant No.3--Hence, finding recorded by the learned first Appellate Court is based on no evidence--Alleged rent receipt filed by the defendant No.3, allegedly issued by the mortgagors i.e. defendants No.7 to 11, is not proved--Held that first Appellate Court was wrong in holding that defendant No.3 was inducted as tenant by the defendants No.7 to 11, even prior to the mortgage--Even otherwise, first Appellate Court should have not disturbed the finding of fact recorded by the learned trial Court, even if, two views were possible--This is also one of the jurisdictional error committed by the first Appellate Court which can be corrected by High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 read with Section 103 C.P.C. (Para 20 & 21)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
RSA No.1776 of 1982
Balbir Singh & Ors.
v.
Rajinder Parshad & Ors.
{Decided on 23/02/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. J. K. Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Second Appeal--High Court while hearing the second appeal can go into the question of fact when material is already available on the record
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.58 & 60--Evidence Act, 1872, S.91 & 92--Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913--Reliance of evidence to contradict contents of registered mortgage deed--Suit for redemption of mortgage--Father of defendant no. 3, alleged tenant, was one of the party to the mortgage deed--Neither mortgagor i.e. defendants No.7 to 11, from whom defendant No.3 alleges to have taken property on lease, nor defendant No.2, who is father of the defendant No.3, had come in the witness box, to explain that in fact defendant No.3 was tenant in actual physical possession prior to the execution of the mortgage--Any evidence led by defendant No.3, is not admissible in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act to disprove the contents of the document. (Para 15)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872, S.91 & 92--Reliance of evidence to contradict contents of registered mortgage deed--Oral evidence sometime is permissible to explain the contents, terms and conditions of the deed when language is ambiguous and needs explanation--However, if language is not ambiguous, vague and need no explanation and both the parties to the documents do not challenge it, then no evidence is permissible to prove otherwise. (Para 15)
(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.58 & 60--Evidence Act, 1872, S.91 & 92--Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913--Suit for redemption of mortgage--Neither defendant nos.7 to 11, original mortgagors, nor defendant Nos.1 and 2, original mortgagees, came into the witness box to state that defendant No.3 son of defendant No.2 was inducted as tenant and was in actual physical possession over the property in dispute, even prior to the date of mortgage--Merely because defendant Nos.7 to 11 who after selling the property to the plaintiffs had no more interest in the property, support the claim of defendant No.3 in the written statement does not amount to legal proof of the factum of tenancy without coming into the witness box. (Para 17)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100 & 103--Second Appeal--Power of High Court to determine issue of fact--High Court while hearing the second appeal can go into the question of fact when material is already available on the record.
(E) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.58 & 60--Evidence Act, 1872, S.91 & 92--Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913--Suit for redemption of mortgage--Neither mortgagor, alleged landlord, defendant Nos.7 to 11, nor mortgagee, father of the defendant No.3, entered into the witness box to support the claim of the defendant No.3--Hence, finding recorded by the learned first Appellate Court is based on no evidence--Alleged rent receipt filed by the defendant No.3, allegedly issued by the mortgagors i.e. defendants No.7 to 11, is not proved--Held that first Appellate Court was wrong in holding that defendant No.3 was inducted as tenant by the defendants No.7 to 11, even prior to the mortgage--Even otherwise, first Appellate Court should have not disturbed the finding of fact recorded by the learned trial Court, even if, two views were possible--This is also one of the jurisdictional error committed by the first Appellate Court which can be corrected by High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 read with Section 103 C.P.C. (Para 20 & 21)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21 R.55
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 971
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
C.R.No.5806 of2009 (O&M)
State of Punjab & Ors.
v.
Smt. Krishan Kumar & Ors.
{Decided on 18/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Raj AAG Haryana.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21 R.55--Execution--Attachment--Claim of pension--Pension payment order issued in the name of DH--In case the payment of decree holder is released the attachment orders passed by trial Court shall be vacated. (Para 2 & 3)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
C.R.No.5806 of2009 (O&M)
State of Punjab & Ors.
v.
Smt. Krishan Kumar & Ors.
{Decided on 18/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Raj AAG Haryana.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21 R.55--Execution--Attachment--Claim of pension--Pension payment order issued in the name of DH--In case the payment of decree holder is released the attachment orders passed by trial Court shall be vacated. (Para 2 & 3)
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Ss.38, 39 & 7
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 970
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 728 of 2010 (O&M)
Avtar Singh
v.
Surjit Singh
{Decided on 17/02/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Ss.38, 39 & 7--Mandatory Injunction--Purchase of truck--Proof--Suit for mandatory injunction directing defendant to clear all encumbrances upon truck and to hand over original RC and affidavit to plaintiff--Plaintiff failed to prove receipt for purchase of truck in spite of availing number of opportunities--He is not entitled to mandatory or permanent injunction. (Para 10 & 11)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 728 of 2010 (O&M)
Avtar Singh
v.
Surjit Singh
{Decided on 17/02/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Ss.38, 39 & 7--Mandatory Injunction--Purchase of truck--Proof--Suit for mandatory injunction directing defendant to clear all encumbrances upon truck and to hand over original RC and affidavit to plaintiff--Plaintiff failed to prove receipt for purchase of truck in spite of availing number of opportunities--He is not entitled to mandatory or permanent injunction. (Para 10 & 11)
Arms Act, 1959, S.25(1)(B)
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 968
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.R.No.3026 of 2009 (O&M)
Karnail Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 26/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.
Arms Act, 1959, S.25(1)(B)--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Accused found in possession of .12 bore single barrel gun--Licence of gun was valid only upto 5.6.94--It was not renewed thereafter till gun was recovered on 20.12.2004--Hence, licence was not renewed for more than ten years--Petitioner rightly convicted--He has already undergone four months of sentence--It cannot be said that there was any intention on part of petitioner for not getting licence renewed and rather licence was not renewed inadvertently as he is a illiterate villager--Sentence awarded reduced from six months to period already undergone. (Para 12, 13, 14 & 15)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.R.No.3026 of 2009 (O&M)
Karnail Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 26/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.
Arms Act, 1959, S.25(1)(B)--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Accused found in possession of .12 bore single barrel gun--Licence of gun was valid only upto 5.6.94--It was not renewed thereafter till gun was recovered on 20.12.2004--Hence, licence was not renewed for more than ten years--Petitioner rightly convicted--He has already undergone four months of sentence--It cannot be said that there was any intention on part of petitioner for not getting licence renewed and rather licence was not renewed inadvertently as he is a illiterate villager--Sentence awarded reduced from six months to period already undergone. (Para 12, 13, 14 & 15)
Surrender of site-Penalty--Demand for the balance penalty was made after more than 2 years and 6 months of the acceptance of surrender of the site--Demand quashed.
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) (SC) 965
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly
Civil Appeal No. 1640 of 2010
Daljit Singh
v.
Union Territory Chandigarh through its Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh
{Decided on 09/02/2010}
For the Appellants : Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Mr. Suryanaryana and Ms. Sonika, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Surrender of site-Penalty--Demand for the balance penalty was made after more than 2 years and 6 months of the acceptance of surrender of the site--Demand quashed.
Chandigarh (Sale of Sites & Buildings) Rule, 1960, R.7-A(2) --Surrender of residential plot--Penalty--Site purchased in the open auction--Appellant, highest bidder in the public auction conducted by Administration--He deposited 25 percent of the bid money and took possession of the auctioned site--Appellant requested respondent to accept the surrender of site--Respondent No. 2 accepted the surrender of the site and imposed penalty @ 2.5%--After 2 years and 6 months, respondent No.2 issued notice to the appellants requiring them to deposit Rs.3,38,082/- in terms of Rule 7-A(2) of the Rules, where penalty @5% of the premium ought to be imposed--Appellants challenged the demand of additional penalty--High Court refused to quash the proceedings--Appeal--Whether demand of penalty by 2nd respondent is valid--Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7-A was applicable--R2 did not commit any illegality--Demand for the balance penalty was made after more than 2 years and 6 months of the acceptance of surrender of the site and the appellants' legitimate prayer for withdrawal of the letter of surrender was rejected without any tangible reason--High Court should have quashed the demand raised by respondent No.2 on the ground of arbitrary exercise of power and violation of the doctrine of fairness in state action-- Demand raised by respondent No.2, quashed. (Para 9 to 12)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly
Civil Appeal No. 1640 of 2010
Daljit Singh
v.
Union Territory Chandigarh through its Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh
{Decided on 09/02/2010}
For the Appellants : Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Mr. Suryanaryana and Ms. Sonika, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Surrender of site-Penalty--Demand for the balance penalty was made after more than 2 years and 6 months of the acceptance of surrender of the site--Demand quashed.
Chandigarh (Sale of Sites & Buildings) Rule, 1960, R.7-A(2) --Surrender of residential plot--Penalty--Site purchased in the open auction--Appellant, highest bidder in the public auction conducted by Administration--He deposited 25 percent of the bid money and took possession of the auctioned site--Appellant requested respondent to accept the surrender of site--Respondent No. 2 accepted the surrender of the site and imposed penalty @ 2.5%--After 2 years and 6 months, respondent No.2 issued notice to the appellants requiring them to deposit Rs.3,38,082/- in terms of Rule 7-A(2) of the Rules, where penalty @5% of the premium ought to be imposed--Appellants challenged the demand of additional penalty--High Court refused to quash the proceedings--Appeal--Whether demand of penalty by 2nd respondent is valid--Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7-A was applicable--R2 did not commit any illegality--Demand for the balance penalty was made after more than 2 years and 6 months of the acceptance of surrender of the site and the appellants' legitimate prayer for withdrawal of the letter of surrender was rejected without any tangible reason--High Court should have quashed the demand raised by respondent No.2 on the ground of arbitrary exercise of power and violation of the doctrine of fairness in state action-- Demand raised by respondent No.2, quashed. (Para 9 to 12)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-36212 of 2009
Narinder Kumar Gupta
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 25/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 467, 408 and 471--Bail--Cheating--Criminal breach of trust by agent--Forgery--Allegations that petitioner, Branch Manager of company doing business of exchanging money after selling travelers cheques of company and receiving amount did not deposit same in account of company--Petitioner in custody for last four months--Allegations of embezzlement substantial--Case is to be proved against petitioner in accordance with law--Trial is likely to take time--Fact that the case is based primarily on documentary evidence and chances of petitioner tempering with same are not there--Petitioner admitted to bail. (Para 6)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-36212 of 2009
Narinder Kumar Gupta
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 25/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 467, 408 and 471--Bail--Cheating--Criminal breach of trust by agent--Forgery--Allegations that petitioner, Branch Manager of company doing business of exchanging money after selling travelers cheques of company and receiving amount did not deposit same in account of company--Petitioner in custody for last four months--Allegations of embezzlement substantial--Case is to be proved against petitioner in accordance with law--Trial is likely to take time--Fact that the case is based primarily on documentary evidence and chances of petitioner tempering with same are not there--Petitioner admitted to bail. (Para 6)
Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1909, R.15--Lambardar
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
LPA No. 62 of 2009 (O&M)
Phool Kumar
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 25/03/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Lambardar--Appointment of--Inter-se merit--There should be no interference with choice made by collector in matter of appointment of Lambardar on basis of merits of candidate even if two views are possible.
Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1909, R.15--Lambardar--Appointment of--Inter-se merit--There should be no interference with choice made by collector in matter of appointment of Lambardar on basis of merits of candidate even if two views are possible--Appellant not in illegal occupation of Panchayat Land--There is no justification for Appellate and Revisional authorities to interfere with well reasoned order passed by Collector appointing appellant as Lambardar--Impugned order set aside. (Para 7 & 10)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
LPA No. 62 of 2009 (O&M)
Phool Kumar
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 25/03/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Lambardar--Appointment of--Inter-se merit--There should be no interference with choice made by collector in matter of appointment of Lambardar on basis of merits of candidate even if two views are possible.
Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1909, R.15--Lambardar--Appointment of--Inter-se merit--There should be no interference with choice made by collector in matter of appointment of Lambardar on basis of merits of candidate even if two views are possible--Appellant not in illegal occupation of Panchayat Land--There is no justification for Appellate and Revisional authorities to interfere with well reasoned order passed by Collector appointing appellant as Lambardar--Impugned order set aside. (Para 7 & 10)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438-
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.M.No.M 33208 of 2009 (O&M)
Sandeep Jindal & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 26/03/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajinder Singh Arya, DAG, Haryana.
For the Complainant: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 and 406--Anticipatory bail--Cheating--Petitioners already joined investigation--They are not required for custodial interrogation--No allegations by state that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade witnesses from deposing true facts in court if released on bail--Interim bail granted confirmed subject to compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 8 & 9)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.M.No.M 33208 of 2009 (O&M)
Sandeep Jindal & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 26/03/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajinder Singh Arya, DAG, Haryana.
For the Complainant: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 and 406--Anticipatory bail--Cheating--Petitioners already joined investigation--They are not required for custodial interrogation--No allegations by state that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade witnesses from deposing true facts in court if released on bail--Interim bail granted confirmed subject to compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 8 & 9)
Friday, July 9, 2010
Succession Act, 1925
Succession Act, 1925
S.63--Evidence Act, 1872, S.68 & 69--Will--Execution of--Proof--Only attesting witness of Will examined did not support Will as he only admitted his signatures on Will but in cross-examination admitted that he never visited place where Will was executed--Scribe also did not produce any scribe register to prove presence of witness or executant at time of registration of Will--Moreover, different dates shown on different pages was a suspicious circumstance which plaintiff failed to explain or dispel--Plaintiff failed to prove execution of Will--Learned Courts below justified in non-suiting plaintiff.; Shugan Chand v. Bachni Devi & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 835
S.63--Evidence Act, 1872, S.68 & 69--Will--Execution of--Proof--Only attesting witness of Will examined did not support Will as he only admitted his signatures on Will but in cross-examination admitted that he never visited place where Will was executed--Scribe also did not produce any scribe register to prove presence of witness or executant at time of registration of Will--Moreover, different dates shown on different pages was a suspicious circumstance which plaintiff failed to explain or dispel--Plaintiff failed to prove execution of Will--Learned Courts below justified in non-suiting plaintiff.; Shugan Chand v. Bachni Devi & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 835
Succession Act, 1925
Succession Act, 1925
S.63--Evidence Act, 1872, S.68 & 69--Will--Execution of--Proof--Only attesting witness of Will examined did not support Will as he only admitted his signatures on Will but in cross-examination admitted that he never visited place where Will was executed--Scribe also did not produce any scribe register to prove presence of witness or executant at time of registration of Will--Moreover, different dates shown on different pages was a suspicious circumstance which plaintiff failed to explain or dispel--Plaintiff failed to prove execution of Will--Learned Courts below justified in non-suiting plaintiff.; Shugan Chand v. Bachni Devi & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 835
S.63--Evidence Act, 1872, S.68 & 69--Will--Execution of--Proof--Only attesting witness of Will examined did not support Will as he only admitted his signatures on Will but in cross-examination admitted that he never visited place where Will was executed--Scribe also did not produce any scribe register to prove presence of witness or executant at time of registration of Will--Moreover, different dates shown on different pages was a suspicious circumstance which plaintiff failed to explain or dispel--Plaintiff failed to prove execution of Will--Learned Courts below justified in non-suiting plaintiff.; Shugan Chand v. Bachni Devi & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 835
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994
S.20(1)--Election of Gram Panchayat--Disqualification--Respondent no.1 removed from post of Sarpanch--Respondent no.1 not debarred from contesting any election much less for any fixed period.; Jaswant Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A.D.C.), Hoshiarpur & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 853
S.76--Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.208(1)(o)--Election of Gram Panchayat--Disqualification--Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (Act of 1994) is later in time than Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act)--Disqualification mentioned in Section 208 of Act would not be operative in face of disqualification provided under Section 11 of Act of 1994 unless and until they both are consistent.; Jaswant Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A.D.C.), Hoshiarpur & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 853
S.20(1)--Election of Gram Panchayat--Disqualification--Respondent no.1 removed from post of Sarpanch--Respondent no.1 not debarred from contesting any election much less for any fixed period.; Jaswant Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A.D.C.), Hoshiarpur & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 853
S.76--Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.208(1)(o)--Election of Gram Panchayat--Disqualification--Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (Act of 1994) is later in time than Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act)--Disqualification mentioned in Section 208 of Act would not be operative in face of disqualification provided under Section 11 of Act of 1994 unless and until they both are consistent.; Jaswant Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A.D.C.), Hoshiarpur & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 853
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
S.208(1)(o)--Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, S.76--Election of Gram Panchayat--Disqualification--Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (Act of 1994) is later in time than Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act)--Disqualification mentioned in Section 208 of Act would not be operative in face of disqualification provided under Section 11 of Act of 1994 unless and until they both are consistent.; Jaswant Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A.D.C.), Hoshiarpur & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 853
S.208(1)(o)--Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, S.76--Election of Gram Panchayat--Disqualification--Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (Act of 1994) is later in time than Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act)--Disqualification mentioned in Section 208 of Act would not be operative in face of disqualification provided under Section 11 of Act of 1994 unless and until they both are consistent.; Jaswant Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A.D.C.), Hoshiarpur & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 853
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911
Octroi Duty--Imposition of--Only sale within the municipal limit does not authorize the municipality to charge octroi on goods--Octroi can be levied and charged when sale of octrioable is made in the octroi area for the purpose of consumption and use within the octroi area--If a person purchases goods to be consumed beyond the octroi area then no octroi can be levied.; Dabur India Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 825
Octroi Duty--No finding recorded on question as to whether goods/products sold were to be consumed or used within municipal unit of Zirakpur--Impugned order quashed--Matter remanded to Appellate Authority for fresh decision in view of observation made by Apex Court in Tata Engineering’s case and Indian Oil Corporation’s case.; Dabur India Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 825
Octroi Duty--Imposition of--Only sale within the municipal limit does not authorize the municipality to charge octroi on goods--Octroi can be levied and charged when sale of octrioable is made in the octroi area for the purpose of consumption and use within the octroi area--If a person purchases goods to be consumed beyond the octroi area then no octroi can be levied.; Dabur India Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 825
Octroi Duty--No finding recorded on question as to whether goods/products sold were to be consumed or used within municipal unit of Zirakpur--Impugned order quashed--Matter remanded to Appellate Authority for fresh decision in view of observation made by Apex Court in Tata Engineering’s case and Indian Oil Corporation’s case.; Dabur India Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 825
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911
Octroi Duty--Imposition of--Only sale within the municipal limit does not authorize the municipality to charge octroi on goods--Octroi can be levied and charged when sale of octrioable is made in the octroi area for the purpose of consumption and use within the octroi area--If a person purchases goods to be consumed beyond the octroi area then no octroi can be levied.; Dabur India Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 825
Octroi Duty--No finding recorded on question as to whether goods/products sold were to be consumed or used within municipal unit of Zirakpur--Impugned order quashed--Matter remanded to Appellate Authority for fresh decision in view of observation made by Apex Court in Tata Engineering’s case and Indian Oil Corporation’s case.; Dabur India Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 825
Octroi Duty--Imposition of--Only sale within the municipal limit does not authorize the municipality to charge octroi on goods--Octroi can be levied and charged when sale of octrioable is made in the octroi area for the purpose of consumption and use within the octroi area--If a person purchases goods to be consumed beyond the octroi area then no octroi can be levied.; Dabur India Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 825
Octroi Duty--No finding recorded on question as to whether goods/products sold were to be consumed or used within municipal unit of Zirakpur--Impugned order quashed--Matter remanded to Appellate Authority for fresh decision in view of observation made by Apex Court in Tata Engineering’s case and Indian Oil Corporation’s case.; Dabur India Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 825
Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995
Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995
S.3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14 (1), 15, 18 and 21, 36--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Petitioner executed three sale deeds out of share held by him in joint property--Individually petitioner has not sold land beyond permissible limit of 1,000/- sq. meter--FIR and framing of charge under Section 36 qua petitioner quashed.; Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 811
S.3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14 (1), 15, 18 and 21, 36--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Petitioner executed three sale deeds out of share held by him in joint property--Individually petitioner has not sold land beyond permissible limit of 1,000/- sq. meter--FIR and framing of charge under Section 36 qua petitioner quashed.; Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 811
Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995
Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995
S.3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14 (1), 15, 18 and 21, 36--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Petitioner executed three sale deeds out of share held by him in joint property--Individually petitioner has not sold land beyond permissible limit of 1,000/- sq. meter--FIR and framing of charge under Section 36 qua petitioner quashed.; Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 811
S.3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14 (1), 15, 18 and 21, 36--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Petitioner executed three sale deeds out of share held by him in joint property--Individually petitioner has not sold land beyond permissible limit of 1,000/- sq. meter--FIR and framing of charge under Section 36 qua petitioner quashed.; Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 811
Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961
Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961
S.8--Land Acquisition Act, 1894--Acquisition of Land--Public Purpose--For expanding existing market yard--Acquisition of land for public purpose is within domain of state--What area should be acquired and what area should be left out of acquisition is no concern of Courts--Prohibition to establish market yard for purchase and sale of any agricultural produced imposed on other agencies and bodies were Municipal Committee, Panchayat Samities, Panchayat or local authorities and not on State Government to establish any other sub market yard or principal yard.; Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 872
S.8--Land Acquisition Act, 1894--Acquisition of Land--Public Purpose--For expanding existing market yard--Acquisition of land for public purpose is within domain of state--What area should be acquired and what area should be left out of acquisition is no concern of Courts--Prohibition to establish market yard for purchase and sale of any agricultural produced imposed on other agencies and bodies were Municipal Committee, Panchayat Samities, Panchayat or local authorities and not on State Government to establish any other sub market yard or principal yard.; Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 872
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
S.138--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of Complaint--Dishonour of Cheque--Cheque issued by ‘S’ for payment of instalment of electricity bills dishonoured--Allegation against petitioner that he assured that cheque will be honoured when presented for payment--Offence under Section 138 will be made out only against drawer of cheque--Petitioner being not drawer or signatory of cheque in dispute cannot be held liable for conviction under Section 138--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Mukesh Kumar v. Punjab State Electricity Board ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 807
S.138--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of Complaint--Dishonour of Cheque--Cheque issued by ‘S’ for payment of instalment of electricity bills dishonoured--Allegation against petitioner that he assured that cheque will be honoured when presented for payment--Offence under Section 138 will be made out only against drawer of cheque--Petitioner being not drawer or signatory of cheque in dispute cannot be held liable for conviction under Section 138--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Mukesh Kumar v. Punjab State Electricity Board ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 807
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
S.55 & 25--Conscious Possession--Acquittal--Recovery of 9 gunny bags of poppy husk--Conscious possession of appellant qua recovered poppy husk bags not established by prosecution--Appellant who would have been charged alternatively for transporting offensive goods without permit not charged under relevant section--Appellants acquitted.; Gurnam Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 857
S.55 & 25--Conscious Possession--Acquittal--Recovery of 9 gunny bags of poppy husk--Conscious possession of appellant qua recovered poppy husk bags not established by prosecution--Appellant who would have been charged alternatively for transporting offensive goods without permit not charged under relevant section--Appellants acquitted.; Gurnam Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 857
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
S.55 & 25--Conscious Possession--Acquittal--Recovery of 9 gunny bags of poppy husk--Conscious possession of appellant qua recovered poppy husk bags not established by prosecution--Appellant who would have been charged alternatively for transporting offensive goods without permit not charged under relevant section--Appellants acquitted.; Gurnam Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 857
S.55 & 25--Conscious Possession--Acquittal--Recovery of 9 gunny bags of poppy husk--Conscious possession of appellant qua recovered poppy husk bags not established by prosecution--Appellant who would have been charged alternatively for transporting offensive goods without permit not charged under relevant section--Appellants acquitted.; Gurnam Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 857
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Compensation--Release of amount of compensation awarded deposited in fixed deposits declined observing that alleged necessity of petitioner for higher education is not substantiated by any document--Is illegal and non sustainable--As per award amount has to be released to petitioner on attaining age of majority even if he had no immediate necessity for amount--Impugned order set aside--Amount of fixed deposit of petitioner including accused interest ordered to be released.; Tarun Chabbra v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 880
Compensation--Transfer of Vehicle--Liability to bear compensation--Fact that respondent no.2 was registered owner of vehicle in question at time of accident admitted--Truck in question was taken on superdari from police custody after accident by respondent no.2 claiming himself to be owner of vehicle--From facts on record it cannot be said that sale of vehicle as claimed by respondent no.2 was complete in all respects except transfer of ownership in record with Registering Authority--Held; that appellant to whom vehicle was allegedly transferred by way of execution of document though not registered with Registering Authority not liable to bear compensation payable on account of accident in question.; Sham Sunder v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 842
S.163-A--Claim Petition--Maintainability of--Claim by claimant that deceased was of 40 years at time of death and used to earn around Rs.18,000/- p.m. from agriculture and diary farming--Section 163-A of Act is special provision particular for class of persons whose income is Rs.40,000/- p.a.--Person with higher income cannot scale down his income to claim benefit under Section 163-A--Claim petition rightly dismissed being not maintainable.; Mithlesh & others v. Satbir Singh & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 838
S.166--Compensation--Denial of--Accident took place in front of college at 9.30 a.m. when there is heavy rush and traffic--Claimant, who was student neither taken to hospital nor college authorities informed about accident--No MCR recorded--Claimant failed to connect injury with accident--Story put by claimant not believable--He could not claim compensation.; Sudesh v. Virender Singh & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 822
Compensation--Release of amount of compensation awarded deposited in fixed deposits declined observing that alleged necessity of petitioner for higher education is not substantiated by any document--Is illegal and non sustainable--As per award amount has to be released to petitioner on attaining age of majority even if he had no immediate necessity for amount--Impugned order set aside--Amount of fixed deposit of petitioner including accused interest ordered to be released.; Tarun Chabbra v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 880
Compensation--Transfer of Vehicle--Liability to bear compensation--Fact that respondent no.2 was registered owner of vehicle in question at time of accident admitted--Truck in question was taken on superdari from police custody after accident by respondent no.2 claiming himself to be owner of vehicle--From facts on record it cannot be said that sale of vehicle as claimed by respondent no.2 was complete in all respects except transfer of ownership in record with Registering Authority--Held; that appellant to whom vehicle was allegedly transferred by way of execution of document though not registered with Registering Authority not liable to bear compensation payable on account of accident in question.; Sham Sunder v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 842
S.163-A--Claim Petition--Maintainability of--Claim by claimant that deceased was of 40 years at time of death and used to earn around Rs.18,000/- p.m. from agriculture and diary farming--Section 163-A of Act is special provision particular for class of persons whose income is Rs.40,000/- p.a.--Person with higher income cannot scale down his income to claim benefit under Section 163-A--Claim petition rightly dismissed being not maintainable.; Mithlesh & others v. Satbir Singh & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 838
S.166--Compensation--Denial of--Accident took place in front of college at 9.30 a.m. when there is heavy rush and traffic--Claimant, who was student neither taken to hospital nor college authorities informed about accident--No MCR recorded--Claimant failed to connect injury with accident--Story put by claimant not believable--He could not claim compensation.; Sudesh v. Virender Singh & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 822
Limitation Act, 1963
Limitation Act, 1963
S.27--Adverse Possession--Facts which are necessary to be pleaded and proved when plea of adverse possession is raised laid down by Apex Court after analyzing law in Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs. Bhikabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Ors. discussed.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether mere non-payment of rent would put to an end to relationship of landlord and tenant so as to assert hostile possession in favour of a person who claims adverse possession--No--Mere non-payment of rent will not put an end to relationship of landlord and tenant so as to declare possession to be open and hostile to true owner.; Jeet Singh through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether plea of adverse possession can be raised by filing suit for declaration by a person who pleads uninterrupted possession--No--Plea of adverse possession is available only as defence.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether plea of adverse possession can be accepted in absence of particulars regarding possession becoming upon and hostile to true owner--No--In absence of particulars regarding it becoming hostile and open such a plea cannot be answered--Plea of ownership and adverse possession cannot co-exits.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Facts which are necessary to be pleaded and proved when plea of adverse possession is raised laid down by Apex Court after analyzing law in Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs. Bhikabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Ors. discussed.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether mere non-payment of rent would put to an end to relationship of landlord and tenant so as to assert hostile possession in favour of a person who claims adverse possession--No--Mere non-payment of rent will not put an end to relationship of landlord and tenant so as to declare possession to be open and hostile to true owner.; Jeet Singh through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether plea of adverse possession can be raised by filing suit for declaration by a person who pleads uninterrupted possession--No--Plea of adverse possession is available only as defence.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether plea of adverse possession can be accepted in absence of particulars regarding possession becoming upon and hostile to true owner--No--In absence of particulars regarding it becoming hostile and open such a plea cannot be answered--Plea of ownership and adverse possession cannot co-exits.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
Limitation Act, 1963
Limitation Act, 1963
S.27--Adverse Possession--Facts which are necessary to be pleaded and proved when plea of adverse possession is raised laid down by Apex Court after analyzing law in Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs. Bhikabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Ors. discussed.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether mere non-payment of rent would put to an end to relationship of landlord and tenant so as to assert hostile possession in favour of a person who claims adverse possession--No--Mere non-payment of rent will not put an end to relationship of landlord and tenant so as to declare possession to be open and hostile to true owner.; Jeet Singh through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether plea of adverse possession can be raised by filing suit for declaration by a person who pleads uninterrupted possession--No--Plea of adverse possession is available only as defence.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether plea of adverse possession can be accepted in absence of particulars regarding possession becoming upon and hostile to true owner--No--In absence of particulars regarding it becoming hostile and open such a plea cannot be answered--Plea of ownership and adverse possession cannot co-exits.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Facts which are necessary to be pleaded and proved when plea of adverse possession is raised laid down by Apex Court after analyzing law in Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs. Bhikabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Ors. discussed.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether mere non-payment of rent would put to an end to relationship of landlord and tenant so as to assert hostile possession in favour of a person who claims adverse possession--No--Mere non-payment of rent will not put an end to relationship of landlord and tenant so as to declare possession to be open and hostile to true owner.; Jeet Singh through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether plea of adverse possession can be raised by filing suit for declaration by a person who pleads uninterrupted possession--No--Plea of adverse possession is available only as defence.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether plea of adverse possession can be accepted in absence of particulars regarding possession becoming upon and hostile to true owner--No--In absence of particulars regarding it becoming hostile and open such a plea cannot be answered--Plea of ownership and adverse possession cannot co-exits.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961, S.8--Acquisition of Land--Public Purpose--For expanding existing market yard--Acquisition of land for public purpose is within domain of state--What area should be acquired and what area should be left out of acquisition is no concern of Courts--Prohibition to establish market yard for purchase and sale of any agricultural produced imposed on other agencies and bodies were Municipal Committee, Panchayat Samities, Panchayat or local authorities and not on State Government to establish any other sub market yard or principal yard.; Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 872
S.4 r/w S.17 and S.6 r/w S.17--Notification--Quashing of--Simultaneous notifications under Section 4 r/w S.17 and under Section 6 r/w 17 on same day cannot be published--Notifications liable to be set aside.; Gurdip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 860
Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961, S.8--Acquisition of Land--Public Purpose--For expanding existing market yard--Acquisition of land for public purpose is within domain of state--What area should be acquired and what area should be left out of acquisition is no concern of Courts--Prohibition to establish market yard for purchase and sale of any agricultural produced imposed on other agencies and bodies were Municipal Committee, Panchayat Samities, Panchayat or local authorities and not on State Government to establish any other sub market yard or principal yard.; Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 872
S.4 r/w S.17 and S.6 r/w S.17--Notification--Quashing of--Simultaneous notifications under Section 4 r/w S.17 and under Section 6 r/w 17 on same day cannot be published--Notifications liable to be set aside.; Gurdip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 860
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961, S.8--Acquisition of Land--Public Purpose--For expanding existing market yard--Acquisition of land for public purpose is within domain of state--What area should be acquired and what area should be left out of acquisition is no concern of Courts--Prohibition to establish market yard for purchase and sale of any agricultural produced imposed on other agencies and bodies were Municipal Committee, Panchayat Samities, Panchayat or local authorities and not on State Government to establish any other sub market yard or principal yard.; Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 872
S.4 r/w S.17 and S.6 r/w S.17--Notification--Quashing of--Simultaneous notifications under Section 4 r/w S.17 and under Section 6 r/w 17 on same day cannot be published--Notifications liable to be set aside.; Gurdip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 860
Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961, S.8--Acquisition of Land--Public Purpose--For expanding existing market yard--Acquisition of land for public purpose is within domain of state--What area should be acquired and what area should be left out of acquisition is no concern of Courts--Prohibition to establish market yard for purchase and sale of any agricultural produced imposed on other agencies and bodies were Municipal Committee, Panchayat Samities, Panchayat or local authorities and not on State Government to establish any other sub market yard or principal yard.; Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 872
S.4 r/w S.17 and S.6 r/w S.17--Notification--Quashing of--Simultaneous notifications under Section 4 r/w S.17 and under Section 6 r/w 17 on same day cannot be published--Notifications liable to be set aside.; Gurdip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 860
Insecticides Act, 1968
Insecticides Act, 1968
S.3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 & 33--Insecticide Rules, 1971, R.27(5)--Quashing of complaint--Misbranding of sample--Sample of insecticide taken from original packing by Insecticide Inspector--Nothing on record that insecticide of which sample was drawn was not stored in same state--Sample not tempered with--Petitioner being dealer/distributor cannot be held liable--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Ramesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 810
S.30(3)--Misbranding--If sample is taken from the original packing of the manufacturer and stored for sale in the same condition, the dealer/distributor is entitled to get protection under Section 30(3) of the Act, if the substance/sample drawn was in its original condition.; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 810
S.3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 & 33--Insecticide Rules, 1971, R.27(5)--Quashing of complaint--Misbranding of sample--Sample of insecticide taken from original packing by Insecticide Inspector--Nothing on record that insecticide of which sample was drawn was not stored in same state--Sample not tempered with--Petitioner being dealer/distributor cannot be held liable--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Ramesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 810
S.30(3)--Misbranding--If sample is taken from the original packing of the manufacturer and stored for sale in the same condition, the dealer/distributor is entitled to get protection under Section 30(3) of the Act, if the substance/sample drawn was in its original condition.; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 810
Insecticide Rules, 1971
Insecticide Rules, 1971
R.27(5)--Insecticides Act, 1968, S. 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 & 33--Quashing of complaint--Misbranding of sample--Sample of insecticide taken from original packing by Insecticide Inspector--Nothing on record that insecticide of which sample was drawn was not stored in same state--Sample not tempered with--Petitioner being dealer/distributor cannot be held liable--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Ramesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 810
R.27(5)--Insecticides Act, 1968, S. 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 & 33--Quashing of complaint--Misbranding of sample--Sample of insecticide taken from original packing by Insecticide Inspector--Nothing on record that insecticide of which sample was drawn was not stored in same state--Sample not tempered with--Petitioner being dealer/distributor cannot be held liable--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Ramesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 810
Insecticide Rules, 1971
Insecticide Rules, 1971
R.27(5)--Insecticides Act, 1968, S. 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 & 33--Quashing of complaint--Misbranding of sample--Sample of insecticide taken from original packing by Insecticide Inspector--Nothing on record that insecticide of which sample was drawn was not stored in same state--Sample not tempered with--Petitioner being dealer/distributor cannot be held liable--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Ramesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 810
R.27(5)--Insecticides Act, 1968, S. 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 & 33--Quashing of complaint--Misbranding of sample--Sample of insecticide taken from original packing by Insecticide Inspector--Nothing on record that insecticide of which sample was drawn was not stored in same state--Sample not tempered with--Petitioner being dealer/distributor cannot be held liable--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Ramesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 810
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860
S.34--Common Intention--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.279 and 304-A--Rash and Negligent Driving--Proof of rashness or negligence are sine qua non for proving commission of an offence under Section 304-A.; Roshan Singh v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 875
S.302/34--Evidence Act, 1872, S.32--Murder--Dying declaration--Evidentiary value of--Death by burning--Deceased and accused (husband) married in the year 1990--No previous allegation of being harassed or treated with cruelty by accused or members of his family--Statement made by deceased inculpating accused after having been tutored, prompted and instigated by members of her family from parents side who were present there--In such circumstances, dying declaration can not constitute sole basis for recording conviction of accused in absence of any other reliable and trustworthy corroborative evidence--Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt.; Satpal Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 845
S.304, Part I, r/w 34--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 323--Culpable homicide--Sudden fight--Fight had take place regarding possession over land left by river--Occurrence was result of without any pre-mediation on spur of moment--Finding of trial court that two appellants shared common intention and knowledge with other accused who gave fatal blow to deceased liable to set aside--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal--Conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part I r/w 34 set aside--They are held liable for their individual act which fall under S.323.; Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.304, Part I--Culpable homicide--Conviction--Sentence--Reduction of--Occurrence took place on 23.4.1994--Appellant already suffered protracted trial of about 16 years--Appellant had suffered 11 injuries on his hand and is suffering from disability on his hand--Taking into consideration protracted trial and mitigating circumstances sentence of appellant reduced from 10 years to 6 years R.I.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.304, Part II and 323--Culpable Homicide--Acquittal--Hurt--Testimony of eyewitnesses and complainant surfaced that accused was empty handed--Accused and deceased had grappled with each other--Accused had given fist blows and deceased had died--No external mark of injury--All vital organs of body found health--Though alcohol was present in blood it can be given as cause of death--Possibility of death being natural death cannot be ruled out--Once prosecution failed to prove that death of deceased was homicide, accused cannot be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder--Accused acquitted of offence under Section 304-Part II--However, accused had caused fist blows, offence under Section 323 made out--Accused sentenced to 1 year R.I.; Swinder Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 814
S.304-A and 337--Rash and Negligent Driving--Acquittal--Neither investigating officer examined nor any site plan of place of occurrence proved by examining draftsman--No evidence that accused were driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner--Prosecution failed to prove identity of driver--Accused acquitted. ; Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 819
S.304-A--Rash and Negligent Driving--Four wheeler was coming on road on its correct side and turned towards right side to go to village--Scooter driven by deceased struck four wheeler on conductor side in cabin--It means four wheeler had almost taken turn and scooteris struck against left side of four wheeler--Solitary testimony of eyewitness uncorroborated qua negligence of accused--Moreover delay in lodging FIR further contributes to concoction in prosecution version--Material improvement in statement of eyewitness regarding identification of accused--Identification of accused never conducted by police--Both Courts could not make proper observations with regard to negligence of accused--No sufficient evidence found to make sure if accused was driving vehicle at time of accident benefit would go to accused--Accused acquitted.; Roshan Singh v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 875
S.306--Dowry Death--Abetment to Suicide--Death by hanging--Both complainant and accused were not belonging to affluent section of society--Demand of dowry first time made on 6.7.1996--Date of marriage was 21.6.1992--Relationship of accused husband with other women before marriage was cause of discord--Deceased would not accept the fact that his husband was having relations with any woman before marriage--It can be safely inferred that there is reason which prompted deceased to commit suicide--Once demand of dowry is ruled out offence under Section 304-A not made out--Death had taken place with in 7 years--Husband could not make his wife adjust and understand that life before marriage is not going to make difference and he had buried his past--Section 113-A of Evidence Act cause presumption that deceased was subjected to cruelty--Therefore, offence under Section 306 IPC alone made out against husband--Conviction of husband for offence under Section 304-B set aside--However, husband found guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to 5 years R.I.; Mohinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 863
S.307 r/w S.34--Attempt to murder--Delay in FIR--Acquittal--Occurrence had taken place on 10.5.1994 at 11.30 P.M.--Case registered at 6.05 P.M. on 11.5.1994--FIR recorded after 18 hours of incident--As per FIR one arm of injured was caught hold by appellant and other arm by his son who was acquitted giving benefit of doubt--Other son of appellant who caused injury died against whom substantive charge for offence under Section 307 was framed--Appellant caused no injury in occurrence--He was only stated to have raised lalkara--Taking delay into consideration and fact that witness improved their version in Court benefit of doubt is granted to appellant--Appellant acquitted.; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 855
S.323--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 304, Part I, r/w 34--Culpable homicide--Sudden fight--Fight had take place regarding possession over land left by river--Occurrence was result of without any pre-mediation on spur of moment--Finding of trial court that two appellants shared common intention and knowledge with other accused who gave fatal blow to deceased liable to set aside--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal--Conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part I r/w 34 set aside--They are held liable for their individual act which fall under Section 323.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.354 and 306--Abetment to Suicide--Outrage modesty of a woman--Conviction--Wife of complainant committed suicide by consuming poison due to attempt made by accused to outrage her modesty--Accused and complainant (husband of deceased) and PW-4 are collaterals--Taking benefit of fact that complainant had gone to mourn death of mother of another collateral accused went to their house and outrage modesty of deceased--Relations between parties were cordial--Complainant disclosed the incident to PW-4 next door neighbourer next morning--Complainant did not told any thing to anybody on next day on cremation--When he returned from cremation his wife had consumed poison--Contention that complainant did not gave information immediately to anybody cannot be used to brush aside his testimony--Conduct of complainant natural, probable and convicting--Conviction upheld--However, taking into consideration that accused suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for 13 years sentence awarded reduced from 4 years to 3 year R.I.; Sukhdev Singh alias Sewa v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 867
S.406, 498-A & 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Compromise--Allegations in FIR arising out of matrimonial dispute which is purely personal in nature--Matter compromised amicable between parties--Parties happily staying together in separate rented house--FIR under Section 406, 498-A and 506 quashed in interest of justice--2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FB) 2225 relied.; Sunil Kumar Joshi & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 841
S.420, 406, 323, 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.156(3)--Cheating--FIR--Cancellation Report--Complaint--Order was placed for purchase of chemicals and solvents from accused--Complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to respondent no.4 and he in turn signed a demand promissory note by way of security confirmation and acknowledgment of liability and repayment guarantee--Dispute is civil in nature--Merely because material was not supplied per se would not indicate commission of offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust--Complaint dismissed.; J.C. Khanna v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 840
S.498-A, 406 and 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Demand of dowry--Marriage of complainant was solemnized 3-4 years before lodging FIR--Complainant has a daughter aged 2 years--FIR recites that complainant has been living in her parental home and accused have not accepted her in matrimonial home since birth of daughter--FIR does not disclose entrustment of property to either of petitioners specifically or dishonest misappropriation of the property--No specific allegations made in regard to commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC--Cognizance of commission of offence is not spelt out from FIR or from averments made in reply filed on behalf of investigating agency as against petitioners--FIR qua petitioners quashed.; Mohinder Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 805
S.34--Common Intention--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.279 and 304-A--Rash and Negligent Driving--Proof of rashness or negligence are sine qua non for proving commission of an offence under Section 304-A.; Roshan Singh v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 875
S.302/34--Evidence Act, 1872, S.32--Murder--Dying declaration--Evidentiary value of--Death by burning--Deceased and accused (husband) married in the year 1990--No previous allegation of being harassed or treated with cruelty by accused or members of his family--Statement made by deceased inculpating accused after having been tutored, prompted and instigated by members of her family from parents side who were present there--In such circumstances, dying declaration can not constitute sole basis for recording conviction of accused in absence of any other reliable and trustworthy corroborative evidence--Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt.; Satpal Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 845
S.304, Part I, r/w 34--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 323--Culpable homicide--Sudden fight--Fight had take place regarding possession over land left by river--Occurrence was result of without any pre-mediation on spur of moment--Finding of trial court that two appellants shared common intention and knowledge with other accused who gave fatal blow to deceased liable to set aside--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal--Conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part I r/w 34 set aside--They are held liable for their individual act which fall under S.323.; Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.304, Part I--Culpable homicide--Conviction--Sentence--Reduction of--Occurrence took place on 23.4.1994--Appellant already suffered protracted trial of about 16 years--Appellant had suffered 11 injuries on his hand and is suffering from disability on his hand--Taking into consideration protracted trial and mitigating circumstances sentence of appellant reduced from 10 years to 6 years R.I.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.304, Part II and 323--Culpable Homicide--Acquittal--Hurt--Testimony of eyewitnesses and complainant surfaced that accused was empty handed--Accused and deceased had grappled with each other--Accused had given fist blows and deceased had died--No external mark of injury--All vital organs of body found health--Though alcohol was present in blood it can be given as cause of death--Possibility of death being natural death cannot be ruled out--Once prosecution failed to prove that death of deceased was homicide, accused cannot be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder--Accused acquitted of offence under Section 304-Part II--However, accused had caused fist blows, offence under Section 323 made out--Accused sentenced to 1 year R.I.; Swinder Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 814
S.304-A and 337--Rash and Negligent Driving--Acquittal--Neither investigating officer examined nor any site plan of place of occurrence proved by examining draftsman--No evidence that accused were driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner--Prosecution failed to prove identity of driver--Accused acquitted. ; Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 819
S.304-A--Rash and Negligent Driving--Four wheeler was coming on road on its correct side and turned towards right side to go to village--Scooter driven by deceased struck four wheeler on conductor side in cabin--It means four wheeler had almost taken turn and scooteris struck against left side of four wheeler--Solitary testimony of eyewitness uncorroborated qua negligence of accused--Moreover delay in lodging FIR further contributes to concoction in prosecution version--Material improvement in statement of eyewitness regarding identification of accused--Identification of accused never conducted by police--Both Courts could not make proper observations with regard to negligence of accused--No sufficient evidence found to make sure if accused was driving vehicle at time of accident benefit would go to accused--Accused acquitted.; Roshan Singh v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 875
S.306--Dowry Death--Abetment to Suicide--Death by hanging--Both complainant and accused were not belonging to affluent section of society--Demand of dowry first time made on 6.7.1996--Date of marriage was 21.6.1992--Relationship of accused husband with other women before marriage was cause of discord--Deceased would not accept the fact that his husband was having relations with any woman before marriage--It can be safely inferred that there is reason which prompted deceased to commit suicide--Once demand of dowry is ruled out offence under Section 304-A not made out--Death had taken place with in 7 years--Husband could not make his wife adjust and understand that life before marriage is not going to make difference and he had buried his past--Section 113-A of Evidence Act cause presumption that deceased was subjected to cruelty--Therefore, offence under Section 306 IPC alone made out against husband--Conviction of husband for offence under Section 304-B set aside--However, husband found guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to 5 years R.I.; Mohinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 863
S.307 r/w S.34--Attempt to murder--Delay in FIR--Acquittal--Occurrence had taken place on 10.5.1994 at 11.30 P.M.--Case registered at 6.05 P.M. on 11.5.1994--FIR recorded after 18 hours of incident--As per FIR one arm of injured was caught hold by appellant and other arm by his son who was acquitted giving benefit of doubt--Other son of appellant who caused injury died against whom substantive charge for offence under Section 307 was framed--Appellant caused no injury in occurrence--He was only stated to have raised lalkara--Taking delay into consideration and fact that witness improved their version in Court benefit of doubt is granted to appellant--Appellant acquitted.; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 855
S.323--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 304, Part I, r/w 34--Culpable homicide--Sudden fight--Fight had take place regarding possession over land left by river--Occurrence was result of without any pre-mediation on spur of moment--Finding of trial court that two appellants shared common intention and knowledge with other accused who gave fatal blow to deceased liable to set aside--Common intention and knowledge are two different things--Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal--Conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part I r/w 34 set aside--They are held liable for their individual act which fall under Section 323.; Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 849
S.354 and 306--Abetment to Suicide--Outrage modesty of a woman--Conviction--Wife of complainant committed suicide by consuming poison due to attempt made by accused to outrage her modesty--Accused and complainant (husband of deceased) and PW-4 are collaterals--Taking benefit of fact that complainant had gone to mourn death of mother of another collateral accused went to their house and outrage modesty of deceased--Relations between parties were cordial--Complainant disclosed the incident to PW-4 next door neighbourer next morning--Complainant did not told any thing to anybody on next day on cremation--When he returned from cremation his wife had consumed poison--Contention that complainant did not gave information immediately to anybody cannot be used to brush aside his testimony--Conduct of complainant natural, probable and convicting--Conviction upheld--However, taking into consideration that accused suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for 13 years sentence awarded reduced from 4 years to 3 year R.I.; Sukhdev Singh alias Sewa v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 867
S.406, 498-A & 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Compromise--Allegations in FIR arising out of matrimonial dispute which is purely personal in nature--Matter compromised amicable between parties--Parties happily staying together in separate rented house--FIR under Section 406, 498-A and 506 quashed in interest of justice--2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FB) 2225 relied.; Sunil Kumar Joshi & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 841
S.420, 406, 323, 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.156(3)--Cheating--FIR--Cancellation Report--Complaint--Order was placed for purchase of chemicals and solvents from accused--Complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to respondent no.4 and he in turn signed a demand promissory note by way of security confirmation and acknowledgment of liability and repayment guarantee--Dispute is civil in nature--Merely because material was not supplied per se would not indicate commission of offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust--Complaint dismissed.; J.C. Khanna v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 840
S.498-A, 406 and 506--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Demand of dowry--Marriage of complainant was solemnized 3-4 years before lodging FIR--Complainant has a daughter aged 2 years--FIR recites that complainant has been living in her parental home and accused have not accepted her in matrimonial home since birth of daughter--FIR does not disclose entrustment of property to either of petitioners specifically or dishonest misappropriation of the property--No specific allegations made in regard to commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC--Cognizance of commission of offence is not spelt out from FIR or from averments made in reply filed on behalf of investigating agency as against petitioners--FIR qua petitioners quashed.; Mohinder Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 805
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)