Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 28, 2010

2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 161
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jora Singh
C.W.P. No.12981 of 2007
Ajay Singh Mann
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 22/10/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raghujeet Madan, Advocate.
Land and Property Law--Resumption of Industrial Plot--Plot allotted for setting up project of Die Caste, Accessories, Engineering Components of Auto Parts etc.--Petitioner already deposited substantial amount towards cost and interest of plot--According to calculations made by respondents only a sum of Rs.43,969 upto 30.6.2008 was payable by petitioner--Letter of intent withdrawn by HSIDC only because the petitioner failed to comply with the formalities and failed to deposit the due amount within the stipulated time frame--On receipt of show cause notice through e-mail petitioner showed his willingness to clear all the due with interest and also given an assurance to complete requisite formalities and start construction and production--Impugned order of resumption set-aside--Petitioner directed to deposit Rs.43,969 within one month--He is also directed to implement industrial project within six months.
(Paras 10, 11, 12 & 13)
--------------------
Neki Ram v. State of Haryana
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 164
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Criminal Revision No.1713 of 2008
Neki Ram
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 11/11/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. S. Sidhu Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Khatkar, AAG Haryana.
Criminal Law--Rash and negligent driving--Reduction in sentence--Sentence of 2 years simple imprisonment and Rs.500/- fine awarded--The petitioner had already undergone incarceration for about 3 months--The fact that the petitioner made efforts to save the scooterist makes out a case for reduction of sentence--Sentence reduced to the period already undergone--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 279, 337, 304-A. (Para 16, 17)
------------------
Jasbir Singh v. Guru Nanak Public School Trust
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 166
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008
Jasbir Singh
v.
Guru Nanak Public School Trust
{Decided on 21/11/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate and Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
For the Caveator-Respondent No.1: Mr. Sumit Mahajan, Sr .Advocate with Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate, Mr. K.S. Bhangu, Advocate and Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Rejection of plaint--Only averment made in plaint are to be looked into--Pleas taken by defendants in written statement wholly irrelevant for deciding application for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.
(A) Civil Procedure--Rejection of plaint--Only averment made in plaint are to be looked into--Pleas taken by defendants in written statement wholly irrelevant for deciding application for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 11. (Para 22)
(B) Civil Procedure--Rejection of plaint--Suit for permanent injunction and rendition of account--Plea that suit is filed by Trust through one of trustees and as per Trust there are 12 trustees and there is no reference given in the plaint as to how many trustees are alive or dead--Further plea that the resolution has not been passed by the majority and wrong translation of clause 4 of the Trust Deed is appended--Not tenable for the purpose of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11--These are debatable issues and disputed question of facts which can be decided after leading both parties--Plaint cannot be rejected as only contents of plaint are to be seen--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 11. (Para 23)
(C) Civil Procedure--Rejection of plaint--Suit for permanent injunction and rendition of account by Trust--Question whether Trust is a legal entity or not is a mixed question of facts and law--It is a debatable issue and it to be decided after considering rival contention and evidence of both parties--Plaint cannot be rejected at this stage--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 11. (Para 24)
(D) Civil Procedure--Rejection of plaint--Suit for permanent injunction and rendition of account by Trust--Dispute related to school appertaining to Trust--Plea raised that plaint is liable to be rejected as there was non compliance of Section 92--Not tenable--Main purpose of Section 92 is to give protection to Public trust from being subjected to harassment by suit filed against it--Section 92 is not applicable when suit is instituted by Trust against third party--Condition precedent to invoke the provisions of Section 92 is that there should be a breach of trust and direction is sought for its administration--No allegation of breach of trust in present case--Suit is maintainable without resorting to proceeding under Section 92--Moreover in view of Order 1 Rule 9 no suit is defeated by reason of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties except necessary party--Therefore plaint filed by Trust who is necessary party cannot be rejected on ground that trustee or original defendant had died--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 92, Order 7, Rule 11. (Para 25, 26 & 29)
(E) Civil Procedure--Impleadment--Impleadment of petitioner as defendants not objected by plaintiff and consequently they were allowed to be arrayed as defendants--Plaintiff also not objected to impleadment of respondent No.2 and 3 and they were also impleaded as defendants--Petitioner cannot raise any objection for impleadment of respondent no.2 and 3 because plaintiff is dominus litus of the case--Plaintiff rightly not objected to impleadment of both parties as defendant as he was not sure which is real defendant in view of Order 1, Rule 7--| Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 1, Rule 7--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 22, Rule 10. (Para 31)
(F) Civil Procedure--Suit for permanent injunction and rendition of account by Trust through one of trustee--After death of one trustee impleadment of another trustee is devolution of interest--Order 22 Rule 3 is applicable in case of death of plaintiff--In present case plaintiff is a trust which is not a deceased person--Therefore, provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 will apply and not Rule 3--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 22, Rule 3 and 10. (Paras 33, 34)
(G) Civil Procedure--Impleadment--Limitation--Delay is not fatal for application under Order 22, Rule 10--| Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 22, Rule 10. (Para 36)
(H) Civil Procedure--Impleadment--Legal representative--Meaning of--Legal Representative is a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddle with the estate of the deceased or where a party sues or is sued in representative capacity and the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so sues or sued--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 2(11)--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 22, Rule 10. (Para 34)
---------------------