Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
ESA No.318 of 2004
Darshan Singh (deceased) through LRs.
v.
Bank of Baroda & Ors.
{Decided on 30/01/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr.Kashmir Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. D.V. Mehta, Advocate.
Civil Procedure Code, 1980, O. 21 R. 58(1)--Attachment of property--Objections--Objections are maintainable only if the property has attached and not sold--Attached property was sold on 5.11.2000 and objections were filed on 12.1.2002--Objections not maintainable.
------------
S. Tarlochan Singh v. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.6638 of 2007
S. Tarlochan Singh
v.
Smt. Harbhajan Kaur
{Decided on 21/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate with Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate with Mr. S.K. Pruthi, Advocate.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S. 13-B--Eviction--Leave to contest--Bonafide requirement--Petition for ejectment filed claiming ejectment on the ground of personal necessity--Tenant using the premises as shop--NRI landlord required premises for residence--Tenant seeking leave to contest on the ground that property let for non-residential need of the landlord--Petition allowed.
-----------
Tasveer Paul Kaur v. Sukhmahinder Singh
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2331
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
ESA No.9 of 2008 and CR No.4660 of 2008
Tasveer Paul Kaur
v.
Sukhmahinder Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 24/04/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate.
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S.6(1) (as amended w.e.f 9.9.2005)--Alienation of property--Hindu Succession Act amended with effect from 9.9.2005 where under a daughter also became Coparcener--Whether the appellant who is the daughter of respondent No.2 has a right in the suit land by virtue of the amendment in Section 6 of the Act by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which came into force w.e.f. 9.9.2005--Held NO--Alienation pursuant to an execution of a decree for specific performance does not fall within the purview of Section 6(1) of the Act and as such, the appellant cannot take advantage of the fact that the sale deed was executed on 8.2.2005 i.e. after 20.12.2004.
-----------------