Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
RFA No.4334 of 2001 (O&M)
Kartar Singh
v.
Punjab State through Land Acquisition Collector & Ors.
{Decided on 15/05/2009}
Present: Mr.G.S.Bhatia Advocate for the appellants in RFA Nos.4332 to 4335,4337,4341,4652,4653 and 5798 of 2001.
Ms.Ekta Thakur, Advocate, for appellants in RFA Nos.2074 of 1996 and 2076 of 1995.
Mr. Navdep Sukhna,AAG,Punjab.
Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate for Union of India.
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.18--Compensation--Land of three villages acquired by same notification for same public purpose--Entire land in one compact block--Same compensation deserved to be awarded. (P.21)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.18--Compensation--Prayer for enhancement of compensation on ground that sale deed considered by reference court gives value of Rs.2,40,500 per acre--Held; that in case minimum cut of 20% is applied value of sale deed would come to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre as awarded--No scope of further enhancement of compensation. (P.18 & 19)
--------------
M/s Prabhakar Traders v. M/s Veejay Traders, Phagwara
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
RSA No. 201 of 1996
M/s Prabhakar Traders
v.
M/s Veejay Traders, Phagwara & Ors.
{Decided on 03/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. L.M. Suri, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shailender Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Admission by one of partner--Cannot be used to bind either partnership firm or its partners.
(A) Partnership Act, 1932, S.19 & 22--Recovery suit--Admission by one of partner--Cannot be used to bind either partnership firm or its partners. (P. 9 & 10)
(B) Partnership Act, 1932, S.19 & 22--Recovery suit--Admission by one of partner that firm purchased on credit paddy worth Rs.32,505.28 ps--Admission made was not clear and categoric in admitting claim against him-Decree cannot be passed against him on basis of such admission. (P.11 & 12)
----------------
Nain Singh v. State of Haryana
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2304 (462)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Criminal Revision No. 817 of 2009 (O&M)
Nain Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 06/08/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
Summoning of person as additional accused--Courts are required to apply stringent test namely as to whether evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of accused sought to be summoned
Summoning of person as additional accused--Power under section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only on basis of fresh evidence brought before Court and not on basis of material collected during investigation
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 319--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 302 r/w Arms Act, S.25--Summoning to face trial as additional accused--There was passing reference of name of petitioner in FIR which was reiterated by complainant in the Court--In addition mother of deceased also stated in same line--But there was no independent evidence to corroborate--Rather there was apparent contradiction in both statements--In facts and circumstances satisfaction cannot be recorded regarding likelihood of conviction of petitioner at this stage--Impugned order set-aside. (P.6, 7 & 8)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319--Summoning of person as additional accused--Power under section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only on basis of fresh evidence brought before Court and not on basis of material collected during investigation--It is an extra ordinary power required to be exercised sparingly and only it compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against a person who has not been challaned--Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to assigned by Court so as to satisfy ingredients of the provisions--Courts are required to apply stringent test namely as to whether evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of accused sought to be summoned. (P.6)
------------