Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 28, 2010

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No. 3633 of 2005
M/S Gupta Hotel, Ballabgarh, Proprietor Neki Ram Gupta
v.
The State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 03/02/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. S.C. Kapoor, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harminderjit Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent 1 & 2: Mr. O.P.Sharma, Addl.Advocate General,
Haryana.
For the Respondent Nos. 3 to 10: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Rejection of Plaint--Improper identification of suit property--Not a ground in itself to reject the plaint
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.7, R13--Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I, Chap.I, Part C, Paragraph 9--Rejection of Plaint--Improper identification of suit property--Not a ground in itself to reject the plaint--Court could have either asked the appellant to supply the identity of property or could have determined the suit on basis of evidence--If Court found that property was not properly identified, it could have declined to pass decree but suit cannot be said to be defective and dismissed.
----------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2190
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No.640 of 2004
Shinder Pal Singh & Anr.
v.
Karam Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 30/04/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate.
For the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rajbir Wasu, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5: Mr. Narender Yadav, Advocate for Mr.
Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate.
Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34– Suit for declaration--Relief of possession--Can not be allowed on mere suit for declaration without claiming further relief is not maintainable.
--------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D.Anand
Civil Revision No.1010 of 2009 & 1599 of 2009
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd.
v.
M/s Bhatia Enterprises & Anr.
{Decided on 30/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sham Lall Bhalla, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. A.K.Bansal, Advocate.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 S.34-A--Award--Ex parte award by arbitrator at Jhansi--Objection filed before the court at Ludhiana--Precept issued by Ludhiana court addressed to the District Judge Ropar--Property situated in Ropar attached--Proceeding at Ludhiana adjourned sine dine in view of proceedings pending in Jhansi Court--Release of attached goods sought from Ludhiana court--Refused--Challenge by way of revision--Revision allowed--Order impugned set aside. Goods under attachment shall be released forthwith.
------------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2199
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
RSA No. 1142 of 2008 (O&M)
Jagdish Chander
v.
Vinod Kumar & Anr.
{Decided on 25/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate.
Evidence Act, 1872--Proof of document--Mode of--Can be proved by producing original--Document placed on record--Marked as mark ‘A’--Merely a photocopy was placed on record as mark ‘A’--Hindi version of the said mark ‘A’ put on record as mark ‘B’--Not proved in accordance with law--No explanation coming forth regarding original--Court below rightly discarded this document.
--------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand
Civil Revision No. 1733 of 2008
Gian Singh & Anr.
v.
Jagtar Singh & Anr.
{Decided on 26/05/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.23--Signatory to statement--When can be said to be--Suit for declaration--Filed through special power of attorney--Withdrawal of suit--Power of withdrawal--Not given in attorney--Newly engaged counsel did not make any statement--Also refused to sign the statement made by the attorney of the plaintiff-respondent before the Trial Court--Mere presence of the learned counsel would not, ipso facto, enable Court to treat him as a signatory to that statement or even a consenting party thereto.
----------------