Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2321
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 721 of 2008 (O&M)
Food Corporation of India
v.
Municipal Council, Dhuri
{Decided on 24/04/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
House Tax--Very fact that the order of assessment is not open to challenge before the civil Court, could not be subsequently challenged merely by filing an appeal
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, Ss.49, 67, 68-A, 84 and 86--House tax--Assessment of House Tax--Suit filed for declaration that imposition of house tax was illegal--Jurisdiction of Civil Court to challenge the assessment of house tax under sections 67 and 68A barred--Very fact that the order of assessment is not open to challenge before the civil Court, could not be subsequently challenged merely by filing an appeal--The plaintiff was required to challenge the order of appellate authority, as by way of, principle of merger, the order of assessment merged in the order passed by the appellate authority--Except for mentioning in the body of the plaint that appellate order was illegal and void, no relief was claimed to challenge order of appellate authority--In absence thereof, it could not be said that the civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit--The suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was not competent for want of notice under Section 49--Finding recorded by the Courts below upheld.
----------------
Poonam Gupta v. State of Punjab & Ors.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
CWP No.5947 of 2009
Poonam Gupta
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 21/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Harmanjit Singh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Human Organ--Mere a remote and old intimacy between the parties cannot be construed that there was such an affection and attachment that the donor would out rightly become ready to donate his body organs.
(A) Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, Ss.9(3) & 2(i)--Bar on donation of Human Organs by strangers--Restrictions on removal and transplantation of human organs--Act prohibits transplantation of human organ unless the donor is a near relative of the recipient--If the donor is found to be misrepresenting the facts, the authority can draw an inference, that he is not a bona fide donor--Mere a remote and old intimacy between the parties cannot be construed that there was such an affection and attachment that the donor would out rightly become ready to donate his body organs.
(B) Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, Ss.9(3) & 2(i)--Bar on donation of Human Organs by strangers--If the donor is found to be misrepresenting the facts, the authority can draw an inference, that he is not a bona fide donor.
(C) Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, Ss.9(3) & 2(i)--Bar on donation of Human Organs by strangers--Act prohibits transplantation of human organ unless the donor is a near relative of the recipient--Relationship between the families of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 or the cause of their affection and attachment appears to be too hazy to be accepted out rightly--Appropriate Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, both have strongly doubted the humanitarian relationship projected between the petitioner and respondent No.4--The attributes of the said doubt are as good as a categoric finding of fact as the same are not founded upon mere conjectures or surmises--No interference by High Court, called for in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (P.11 & 15)

--------------
Sh. Ashok Kumar Pandhi v. Ashwani Kumar Pandhi
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No. 256 of 2009 (O&M)
Sh. Ashok Kumar Pandhi & Ors.
v.
Ashwani Kumar Pandhi & Anr.
{Decided on 02/03/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.N.S.Sarup, Advocate & Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Will--Ousting of Heir--Testator ousted his heirs who were litigating with him in life time--It can be a sufficient factor to oust a particular heir or a particular set of heirs from inheritance.
(A) Succession Act, 1925, S.63--Will--Ousting of Heir--Appellants and respondent No.1 are descendants--Appellants were litigating with the deceased--Testator ousted his heirs who were litigating with him in life time--It can be a sufficient factor to oust a particular heir or a particular set of heirs from inheritance.
(B) Succession Act, 1925, S.63--Will--Suspicious Circumstance--The mere fact that last digit occurring in figure ‘1989’ has been converted into ‘1988’ will not render a document suspicious and not worthy of reliance as this can be termed to be a simple human error.
(C) Succession Act, 1925, S.63--Will--Suspicious Circumstance--Fact that will was scribed by a different scribe and not by the scribe who used to write documents for the testator, would ipso facto be not termed to be a suspicious circumstance, if the Will has been proved by other means--Will proved and can safely be termed to be a reflection of the testator’s desire.
--------------