Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2349
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
R.S.A. No.2227 of 2009
Bhajan Lal & Anr.
v.
Vijay Kapoor & Ors.
{Decided on 07/07/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate.
Specific Relief Act, 1963--Agreement to Sell--Possession--Industrial plot of company went into liquidation--Auction purchaser could not fulfill its commitment of payment of major portion of auction money, as a result of property was sold, in favour of plaintiff--Auction purchaser was never authorised by the official liquidator to deal or sell the property, therefore they were not competent to execute any agreement to sell in favour of defendants--Defendants being employees, were only inducted as licencees, and after revocation of licence and on their failure to surrender the possession they became unauthorized occupants--Liable to be evicted.
------------------
Gurmail Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2352
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Crl. Rev. No.1489 of 2009 (O&M)
Gurmail Singh & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 30/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kuldeep V. Singh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Summoning a person as additional accused--Court summoned petitioner on statement of complainant; even though complainant was partly cross-examined--No illegality
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319--Summoning a person as additional accused--Attempt to murder--Police gave clean chit to petitioner--Court summoned petitioner on statement of complainant; even though complainant was partly cross-examined--No illegality--Contention that summoning order cannot be passed as cross-examination of complainant was not completed--Rejected--Held; In view of statement of complainant and the fact that in part cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused already charged in the case, not much dent had been made in her testimony.
------------------
Sumer and Ors. v. State of Haryana
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2356
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Crl. Appeal No. 265-SB of 1999
Sumer and Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 22/04/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Sanjeev Sheoran, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.S. Sullar, DAG, Haryana.
Penal Code, 1860, S.44--Probation of Offenders Act, 1956, S.4--Probation--Appellant were below 21 years of age at the time of conviction as such, statutorily entitled to be released on probation of good conduct.
---------------
Raja Ram and Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 2358
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Garewal
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh
Crl. Appeal No.577-DB of 2000
Raja Ram and Anr.
v.
State of U.T. Chandigarh
{Decided on 30/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Matwinder Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent -U.T.: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate.
Penal Code, 1860, S.302--Murder--Acquittal--Prosecution case that father-in-law and mother-in-law poured oil on deceased and set him on fire when he went to see his wife--No eye witness--Accused convicted on basis of the two dying declaration which were recorded by Judicial Magistrate and the by Investigating Officer after interval of about three hours--Conviction set aside-
(a) Occurrence took place nearly 60 meters from house of accused.
(b) Information received in PCR and inquest report that someone as hit himself.
(c) Contradictions in dying declarations with regard to place of occurrence further contradicted circumstance found dying investigation.
--------------------