Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1426
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
CWP No.7372 of 2007 (O&M)
Gram Panchayat Umarpura, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur
v.
Director Rural Development & Panchayat Department, Punjab & Ors
{Decided on 15/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G.Punjab,
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate.
Revenue Law--Village Common Land--Ejectment--Title--Once it is held that it is mandatory to decide application under Section 11 of Act like a civil suit, question whether it has led to any prejudice or not is not to be seen--Application filed under Section 11 could not have been disposed of summarily--Impugned order set-aside--Parties to appear before collector who shall follow procedure as prescribed under law--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 11. (Paras 5 & 6)
--------------------
Jaswant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1427
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-11328 of 2009
Jaswant Singh & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 07/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr.P.K.Kataria, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Cheating--Forgery--Agreement To Sell--Petitioner No.1 executed agreement to sell in favour of--Complainant and received earnest money--However instead of getting sale deed executed in favour of complainant, petitioner no.1 sold property in question to some other persons--Custodial interrogation of petitioner no.1 necessary--Petition seeking anticipatory bail qua him dismissed--Whereas petitioner no.2 is attesting witness of sale deed executed in favour of other persons--His case is on different footing--Petition qua petitioner no.2 for anticipatory bail liable to be allowed--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B. (Para 5,6 & 7)
------------------
Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc M-3680 of 2009
Satish Kumar
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.
{Decided on 18/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. AS Ghangas, DAG Haryana.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate.
Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Theft of Electricity--Compounding of offence--In notice for compounding of offence detail amount of compounding mentioned Rs.14,40,000/- said amount has been deposited by petitioner--Custody of petitioner not required for investigation--Open to complainant to further recoveries due, it any--Interim bail granted to petitioner made absolute--He shall join investigation and abide by conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 320 and 438--Penal Code, 1860, Section 379--Electricity Act, 2003, Sections 135 & 152.
(Para 7 & 8)
------------------