Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.2354 of 1982
Sukh Ram Dass & Ors.
v.
The District & Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur & others.
{Decided on 20/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.L.Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr.Kabir Sarin, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
For the Respondent No.2: Ms.Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocate.
(A) Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, S.7, 8, 10 & 11--Mortgaged property--Property mortgaged to person who migrated to Pakistan after partition--Whether such property become evacuee property to be dealt with by custodian--Held; No. (P. 22)
(B) Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, S.15--Revision--Limitation--Revision petition field after 16 years--Respondent not slept over his right but on adverse chosen wrong forum in first filing civil suit and then writ petition to impugn same order--There being no limitation prescribed revision petition can be entertained. (P.45)
(C) Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, S.7, 8, 10 & 11--Doctrine of merger/Resjudicata--Property mortgaged to person who migrated to Pakistan after partition--Competent authority vested this land in custodian free form all encumbrances--Mortgagor filed civil suit challenging this order which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and then a writ which was dismissed--No illegality in order passed by revisional authority setting aside order of competent authority and sale of property in auction sale--Plea that order passed by competent and would act a bar for revisional authority to pass order--Not tenable. (P.44 & 45)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.22, R.4 and O.22, R.2B--Abatement--Legal representative--Impleadment--Where no application is made suit is not abate against deceased defendant--LRs of defendants equally responsible to file application for impleadment. (P.46)
(E) Doctrine of merger--Applicability--View culled out from various judgments considered in details by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed's cases summarised. (P.41)
(F) Doctrine of merger--Applicability--Doctrine of merger would not apply where case is dismissed by passing a non speaking order on that it is passed in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction and not by way of appeal, revision etc. dismissed of SLP in limine would equally apply to case where such order is passed in writ petition which is dismissed in limine by passing a non-speaking order. (P.42)
--------------
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2415 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.377 of 2006
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd.
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 04/08/2009}
For the Appearing Parties: Mr. Sunil Gupta and Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Ms. Shally Bhasin Maheshwari, Ms. Anne Mathew, Mr. B. Rangnathan, Atul Shankar Mathur, Ms. Shruti Verma for M/s. Khaitan & Co., Mr. Anil Grover, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Pramod Swarup, Mr. V.P. Singh, Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Mr. Subhash Kaushik, Mrs. Anil Katiyar for Mr. D.S. Mahra, Mr. J.S. Bhatti, Shree Pal Singh, Mr. Ajay Pal, Mr. Kuldip Singh and Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao, Advocates.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.406--Transfer of case--Transfer of case from one state to another--Charges and counter charges of misappropriation--Trial going on in different Courts--There are sixteen criminal cases filed by the Respondent against the petitioner in various courts in the State of Punjab. In addition, the petitioner has also filed four criminal cases against Respondents. There are ten FIRs pending against the parties and investigation in six of the cases has resulted in charge sheet being filed against the parties--District Judges of Chandigarh and Ludhiana asked to consider the desirability of transferring all the criminal matters (as far as practicable and legally permissible) to one court so as to enable them to be disposed of one after the other. (P.12 & 19)
--------------

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2418
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
C.W.P. No. 11489 of 2006
M/S Ghai Rubber India
v.
Dev Raj & Anr.
{Decided on 10/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13 (2) (ii) (a)--Eviction--Subletting and other grounds--Plea of being partnership--Brother of tenant in exclusive possession of shop--Sub-letting proved--Plea of tenant that brother was his partner and there was a partnership deed–Fact that tenant is doing business of fruit selling somewhere else stood proved on the file--Eviction upheld.
--------------