Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 20, 2010

2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly
Civil Appeal No. 1240 of 2005
Phool Patti
v.
Ram Singh (Dead) through Lrs.
{Decided on 31/03/2009}
IMPORTANT POINT
Registration--Since there is no mention of any pre-existing right in the exception in clause (vi) it is difficult to accept the views in Bhoop Singh's case--Matter to be considered by a larger Bench.
(A) Registration Law--If a decree is passed regarding some immovable property which is not a subject-matter of the suit then it will require registration--|Registration Act, 1908, Section 17(2)(iv). (Para 14)
(B) Interpretation of Statute--Court cannot add words to the statute or change its language, particularly when on a plain reading the meaning seems to be clear. (Para 15)
(C) Registration Law--Interpretation of--Since there is no mention of any pre-existing right in the exception in clause (vi) it is difficult to accept the views in Bhoop Singh's case--There is inconsistency in the decisions of Bhoop Singh's case and K. Raghunandan's case--Since it is difficult to agree with the decision of in Bhoop Singh's case, matter referred for constituting larger Bench for interfering the exception in Clause (vi) of Section 17(2) of Registration Act--|Registration Act, 1908, Section 17(2)(iv). (Para 15 to 17)
---------------

Kanwar Pal v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Crl. Revn. No.115 of 2002
Kanwar Pal
v.
State of Haryana through G.F.I., and ors.
{Decided on 18/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Kharb, AAG, Haryana.
(A) Food Adulteration--Adulteration of milk--Conviction--Milk solid not found 14% deficient of minimum prescribed standard--Concurrent findings that sample was taken from milk after completely homogenizing the same, not perverse--No interference with conviction of accused called for--|Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sections 7 r/w 16. (Para 14)
(B) Food Adulteration--Adulteration of milk--Independent witnesses--Food Inspector, complainant exercised discretion vested in him in giving up independent witnesses as won over by accused in bonafide manner--Evidence produced by prosecution is creditworthy and inspires confidence in mind of Court--Conviction and Sentence upheld--|Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sections 7 r/w 16. (Paras 17 & 19)
--------------------
Bheem Sain v. Arjun Singh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand
Civil Revision No.5767 of 2008
Bheem Sain
v.
Arjun Singh
{Decided on 17/04/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajnish Chauhan, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate.
Criminal Law--Nuisance--Encroachment--If affected party has grievance with regard to validity of an order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. the challenge thereto has to be filed before competent Court of law on appellate or revisional side by that party--That party cannot validly file civil suit against order passed by S.D.M. in proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C.--Impugned order passed by learned Ist Appellate Court restraining defendants-petitioners from demolishing any part of house of plaintiff/appellant on basis of order passed by S.D.M. forcibly and illegally except main suit itself within three months--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 133(2). (Paras 4,5 & 6)
------------------
Yadwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Crl. Revision No. 247 of 2009
Yadwinder Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 15/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dhirindert Chopra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
Criminal Law--Cheating--Sentence--Reduction of--Matriculations certificate produced by petitioner constable at time of his recruitment found bogus--Petitioner already undergone three months of actual sentence and facing criminal proceedings since 1998--He lost his job on account of registration of the case--Conviction of petitioner under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC maintained--However sentence of imprisonment reduced to already undergone--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 420, 465, 468 and 471. (Paras 3 & 4)
------------
Vinod Kumar Ghai v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
C.W.P. No. 6015 of 2005
Vinod Kumar Ghai
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 15/12/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. H.S. Mattewal, AG, Punjab with Mr. Parveen Goel, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. APS Mann, Advocate.
Land and Property Law--Acquisition of Land--Public Purpose--Construction of power sub station--Decision to construct substation taken after due deliberation and not to deprive petitioner of his land--It is to facilitate the additional demand for the power supply--Such like decisions falls with domain of experts and are beyond judicial review--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 5-A and 6. (Paras 11, 12 & 13)
----------------
State of Haryana v. Manbhari
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
RFA No. 2473 of 1989
State of Haryana
v.
Manbhari
{Decided on 12/12/2008}
For the Appellants: Mr. Rajiv Kawatra,Sr.D.A.G,Haryana.
For the Respondent (s)/Landowners(s): None
IMPORTANT POINT
Acquistion--Additional Compensation--Benefit of--If award of Collector is after 30.4.1982 claimant shall be entitled to all benefit of amended Act--If award of Collector is before 30.4.82, but award of reference Court is after 30.4.82, claimant is entitled be benefits under Sections 23(2) and 28 of amended Act but not entitled to benefit under Sections 23(1-A).
(A) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of Land--Additional Compensation--Benefit of--Award of reference Court is after 1982 but award of Collector is before 30.4.1982--Claimants/Land entitled to benefit of Section 23(2) and 28 of Amended Act in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh by LR. etc--But claimant not entitled to benefit of Sections 23(1-A)--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 23(2), 23(1-A) and 28. (Para 7)
(B) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of Land--Additional Compensation--Benefit of--If award of Collector is after 30.4.1982 claimant shall be entitled to all benefit of amended Act--If award of Collector is before 30.4.82, but award of reference Court is after 30.4.82, claimant is entitled be benefits under Sections 23(2) and 28 of amended Act but not entitled to benefit under Sections 23(1-A)--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 23(2), 23(1-A) and 28. (Para 7)
------------