Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1435
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-579 of 2005 (O&M)
Balbir Singh
v.
Kaushalya Devi
{Decided on 19/05/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Amarjit Khurana, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Criminal Law--Quashing of complaint--Abetment of Suicide--General allegations against petitioners--Infact demand of cash and scooter made by husband of respondent--Although allegation was that demand of scooter was made at instance of wife of elder brother of husband petitioner no.2 but same would be used by her husband--All petitioners living separately since their marriage--Petitioner have been falsely roped in the case merely because of their relationship with husband of respondent--Complaint and summoning order and consequential proceeding arising there form quashed qua petitioners--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B. (Paras 6 & 7)
--------------------
Bachan Singh v. Gursaran Singh & Ors.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1439
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No.1514 of 2009 (O&M)
Bachan Singh (now deceased) thro. Lrs.
v.
Gursaran Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 19/05/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to Sell--Merely because agreement to sell does not describe land property it would not render it to be a suspicious document if other attending circumstance conclusively point to execution of the same.
(A) Specific Relief--Agreement to sell--Suit for specific performance--Agreement to sell validly executed--Passing of part of sale consideration also proved--Purchaser always ready and willing to perform his part of contract--Seller or his legal heir failed to substantiate plea of fraud--Merely because agreement to sell does not describe land property it would not render it to be a suspicious document if other attending circumstance conclusively point to execution of the same and in such eventuality, all the factors have to be considered in their totality to conclude that agreement was valid document or not--Likewise, merely because the deed writer was not examined, it would not rob agreement its credibility it there are attending circumstances to show its execution. (Para 19, 21, 23 & 24)
(B) Specific Relief--Agreement to sell--In a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell following essential ingredient have to be proved are-
1. that the agreement to sell was validly executed;
2. that there was valid consideration; and
3. that there was willingness and readiness on the part of the vendee to perform his part of agreement--|Specific Relief Act, 1963. (Para 14)

--------------------
Chander Shekhar v. Bishan Devi through LRs
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1442
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.840 of 2003 (O&M)
Chander Shekhar
v.
Bishan Devi through LRs
{Decided on 02/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate and Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate and Mr. M.S. Kang, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate.
Rent Law--Eviction--Bonafide requirement of landlord--Relevant consideration –The need as it exist prior to the filing of petition is relevant--Must also prove to subsist on the day of final orders--Subsequent addition of requirement--Competency of appeal, court to look into--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Section 13.
---------------------
Harnek Singh v. Paramjit Singh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Civil Revision No. 1029 of 2008 (O&M)
Harnek Singh
v.
Paramjit Singh
{Decided on 24/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate.
(A) Rent Law--Leave to defend-- Application for--Filing of--To be filed within fifteen days from the date of service--Service affected by munadi--Date of munadi is the date for starting of limitation--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
(B) Rent Law--Leave to defend-- Application for--Filing of--Limitation--Condonation of delay--Not competency of court--Provisions of limitation act not applicable--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

------------------
Dwarka Dass v. Punjab Handloom Weavers Co-op,….
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1447
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
CR No.1263 of 1989
Dwarka Dass
v.
Punjab Handloom Weavers Co-op, Society Ltd. & Anr.
{Decided on 27/08/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kabir Sarin, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate.
Rent Law--Subletting--Property let out to the society--Society changing its name in accordance with rules--No case of amalgamation--No change in the membership of the society--Rights of founder members not affected--Case of sub-letting not made out--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13.
----------------
Sunil Dhawan v. Satwant Kaur & Ors.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.4113 of 2004 (O&M)
Sunil Dhawan
v.
Satwant Kaur & Ors.
{Decided on 03/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Reshav Kataria, Advocate.
For the Respondents; Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate.
Rent Law--Eviction--Bonafide requirement of body of landlords--Tenant in possession of more accommodation than the requirement of individual landlord--The integrity of tenancy--Not to be decimated--Only if specific portion is decided that can be ordered to be vacated.
--------------------
Gulshan Sehgal v. Asooba Singh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1451
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.4613 of 2006 (O&M)
Gulshan Sehgal
v.
Asooba Singh
{Decided on 03/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate.

Rent Law--Landlord and tenant--Denial of relationship--Competency of rent controller to decide question of title--Not competent in routine--Exceptional case of tenancy having been created after passing of decree by civil court--Can be carved out as an exceptional case--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act Section 13.
----------------
Mrs. Gurtej Sidhu v. A.S. Rattan
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Kannan
C.R. No.4738 of 2004 (O&M) & C.R. No.240 of 2005 (O&M)
Mrs. Gurtej Sidhu
v.
A.S. Rattan
{Decided on 12/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate.
For the Petitioner in C.R. No.240 of 2005: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate
For the Respondent in C.R. No.240 of 2005: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate.
Rent Law--Eviction--Bonafide requirement--Plea of having no accommodation and had not vacated any accommodation without reasonable and probable cause--Mandatory--Sufficiency of accommodation--To be adjudged with the view point of landlord and not the tenant--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act Section 13.
------------------