Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.17809 of 2008
Dalbir Kaur
v.
Gram Panchayat, Hijrawan Kalan, District Fatehabad & Anr.
{Decided on 27/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Mr. P. C. Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
For the Respondent No.7: Mr. Ranjit S. Dhiman, Advocate.
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, S. 7 and 11--Unauthorized occupation of Shamlat Land--Eviction of--Non filing of any application before Collector for eviction of the unauthorized occupant by Sarpanch of village--Filing of application by resident--Competent--A resident has interest in Common land--Can certainly have a grievance against encroachment.
----------------
Tehal Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue)..
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.13103 of 2008
Tehal Singh
v.
Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, Chandigarh etc.
{Decided on 27/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
For the Respondent No.4: Mr. G. S. Nagra, Advocate.
(A) Punjab Land Revenue (Lambardari) Rules, 1908, R. 15, 16 and 14--Lambardar--Appointment of--Petitioner and Respondent both illiterate--Petitioner stated to have studied upto 7th standard –Information regarding ownership of land found to be incorrect--Respondent appointment as Lambardar.
(B) Punjab Land Revenue (Lambardari) Rules, 1908, R.15, 16 and 14 –Lambardar --Appointment by Collector –Appeal against order--Ground that respondent had given application for appointment when date had expired--Objection not taken before Collector--Commissioner rejected the objection--Cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time before Appellate Authority.
(C) Punjab Land Revenue (Lambardari) Rules, 1908, R.15, 16 and 14--Lambardar--Appointment of--Age of candidate--Not to be criteria to appoint--One candidate aged 75 years--Other aged 50 years--Younger ignored because he made misleading statement about his merits and property.
(D) Punjab Land Revenue (Lambardari) Rules, 1908, R.15, 16 and 14 --Lambardar--Appointment made by Collector--Appeal before Commissioner--Conduct of candidates--Relevancy of--The conduct of the petitioner was found to be infirm as he had tried to provide misleading information about his merits--Relevant and material consideration.


----------------
Sardar Associates & Ors. v. Punjab & Sind Bank
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2425 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma
Civil Appeal Nos. 4970-4971 of 2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5249-5250 of 2008]
Sardar Associates & Ors.
v.
Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors.
{Decided on 31/07/2009}
IMPORTANT POINT
One time settlement--Aggrieved party can claim its right of judicial review under Article 32 or 226 to quash the circular in case of discriminatory application of such rules/guidelines so mentioned in the circular
(A) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S.13(2)--Banking Regulation Act, 1949, S.5 & 21--Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, S.21--Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, S.3-- Banking Companies (Amendment) Act, 1959, S.36A--Constitution of India, 1950, Art.14--One time settlement--Judicial review--Settlement--Power on the part of the Reserve Bank of India to issue circulars and guidelines as regards one time settlement--Offer made by the appellants in terms of the RBI guidelines for one time settlement was Rs. 3,45,31,000/-, however, keeping in view the fact that the respondent - Bank had a better security available to it demanded a sum of Rs. 4.92 crores--While making a deviation, the Board of Directors of a public sector bank could not have taken recourse to a policy decision which is per se discriminatory. Respondent - Bank is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India apart from the fact that it is bound to follow the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India--Broad policy decisions contained in the guidelines were required to be followed--Power of the Board of Directors to make deviation in terms of Clause 4 thereof would only be in relation to some minor matters which does not touch the broad aspects of the policy decision and in particular the one governing the non-discriminatory treatment--Bank guilty of violation of the equality clause contained in the Reserve Bank of India guidelines as also Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (P.14, 30 to 33)
(B) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S.13(2)--Banking Regulation Act, 1949, S.5 & 21--Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, S.21--Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, S.3--Banking Companies (Amendment) Act, 1959, S.36A--One time settlement--Judicial review-- Reserve Bank of India is a statutory authority. It exercises supervisory power in the matter of functionings of the Scheduled Banks. The matter relating to supervision of Scheduled Banks is also governed by the Reserve Bank of India Act--Reserve Bank is entitled to issue guidelines from time to time.
(C) Banking Regulation Act, 1949, S.46(4)--Constitution of India, 1950, Art.32--Judicial review--Settlement--One time settlement--Can the aggrieved party, claim its right of judicial review under Article 32 or 226 to quash the circular in case of discriminatory application of such rules/guidelines so mentioned in the circular--Offer made by the appellants in terms of the RBI guidelines for one time settlement was Rs. 3,45,31,000/-, however, keeping in view the fact that the respondent - Bank had a better security available to it demanded a sum of Rs. 4.92 crores--Bank itself had made an offer to accept the proposal of the appellants in regard to enforcement of one time settlement pursuant to the RBI guidelines. Indisputably, it was all along aware that the amount of securities was lying with it. It is only pursuant thereto the directions had been issued by the Tribunal--In terms of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India a right is created in a borrower a writ of mandamus could be issued. (P.30, 35, 40 & 41)
___________