Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 28, 2010

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (SC) 1949
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. M. Lodha
Civil Appeal No. 4605 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1201/2008)
Haryana State Co-operative Supply Marketing Federation Limited.
v.
Sanjay
{Decided on 22/07/2009}
IMPORTANT POINT
Reinstatement--When a casual employee is employed in different establishments, may be under the same employer, the concept of continuous service cannot be applied.
(A) Service and Labour Law--Reinstatement--When a casual employee is employed in different establishments, may be under the same employer, the concept of continuous service cannot be applied. (Para 12)
(B) Service and Labour Law--Industrial Establishment--Each branch of a company should normally be regarded as a distinct industrial establishment. (Para 9)
(B) Service and Labour Law--Reinstatement--Continuity of Service--Office of the District Manager, Jind and the office of the District Manager, Hissar are separate and distinct and the services rendered by the workman at these two establishments cannot be clubbed for the purpose of reckoning continuity of service–Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25-F. (Para 13)
------------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
Crl. Misc. No.1828-M of 2003
Mohinder Singh Lathar & Anr.
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.
{Decided on 17/07/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing of FIR--Complainant tried to inject criminal dement into to a dispute which is purely of civil nature--FIR is clearly an abuse of process of law.
Criminal Law--Quashing of FIR--Complainant had business transaction with Food Supplies Department of which petitioners were officials--Dispute occurred primarily on account of withholding of cheque of which petitioner No.1 was duly authorised to clear--Arbitration proceedings initiated regarding cheque in dispute--Complainant tried to inject criminal dement into to a dispute which is purely of civil nature--Held; that complaint/FIR is clearly an abuse of process of Law--FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed with Rs.20,000/- as cost--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482--Penal Code, 1860, Section 323, 218, 467, 471, 500, 506, 420, 120-B & 504. (Paras 8, 9, 10 & 11)
--------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1955
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
R.S.A. No. 5020 of 2003
Raj Kumar & Anr.
v.
Kailon Devi
{Decided on 21/07/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
(A) Succession Law--Will--Execution of--Proof--Registered Will--Scribe categorically deposed with regard to execution of Will--Executant who was not having any child of his own executed Will in favour of propounder whom he was treating his wife--Executant died on 16.3.1998 whereas Will was executed on 11.6.1996--Will duly executed by executant cannot said to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances--No interference--Succession Act, 1963. (Paras 10, 11 & 12)
(B) Succession Law--Will--Execution of--Proof--Registered Will--Presumption of truth--Where the Will is a registered document then the endorsement made by the Sub Registrar that the Will had been thumb marked or signed by the executant in his presence after it was read over to the executant has a presumption of truth--Succession Act, 1963. (Para 9)
(C) Succession Law--Will--Execution of--Proof--Atleast one attesting witness is required to prove due execution of Will--Attesting witness is required to establish that Will in question was executed by testator in presence of attesting witnesses and they had attested same in presence of testator--Succession Act, 1963 (Para 9)
------------