Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 28, 2010

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Regular Second Appeal No.2355 of 2007
Arun & Ors.
v.
Nalin Kumar & Ors.
{Decided on 17/07/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100--Second Appeal--Findings of fact recorded by Courts below, on a particular issue--No interference with, is permissible--High Court can only interfere in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, if it comes to the conclusion that substantial questions of law arise in said appeal and Courts below did not record correct findings, thereon. (P.10)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39, R.1 & 2--Injunction--The concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below, that plaintiff was a given a right to use common dahlij for the purpose of opening door and for ingress and outgress through the same, vide sale deed, that defendants could not interfere into peaceful user of that common dahlij, by plaintiff and that plaintiff (now respondent) was entitled to injunction prayed for, being based on correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point--Do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and a such warrant no interference upheld--Appeal dismissed. (P.10 & 12)
State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj & Ors.
899 - 2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Regular First Appeal No. 3622 of 2009 (O&M)
State of Haryana
v.
Tilak Raj & Ors.
{Decided on 23/12/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG Haryana.
For the Respondent nos. 9 to 14: Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent nos. 1 to 8: None.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss.18 & 30--Market value--Land of same village involved which was also involved in case of Ved Pal and Others vs. State of Haryana--Notifications under Sections 4 were issued in two cases with gap of four days only--Reference Court rightly determined market value of acquired land at rate of Rs.450/- per sq. yard following judgment of Ved Pal’s case. (P.9)
----------
M/s Rishab Cargo Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd.
900 - 2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Regular Second Appeal No.1651 of 2009
M/s Rishab Cargo Limited & Ors.
v.
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
{Decided on 13/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Mere fact that in consignment words at owner’s risk were written did not absolve carriers of its liability.
Carriers Act, S.10--Negligence--Damages--Liability of--Privity of contract--Suit for recovery by insurance company--Consignment not delivered at destination--Loss of truck and goods in transit could not be said to be an act of God nor could it be said to be an act of enemy of state--Loss was on account of ceaselessness or negligence of carriers and their agents--It they caused loss of goods during transit then they were liable to pay damages for such loss to consignor--Since goods had been booked with carries it did not discharge their liability dispite issuance of notice under Carriers Act--Claim was settled by insurer and receipt was issued--Rights of consignor stood subrogated in favour of Insurance Company--Under these circumstances there was a privity of contract between insurance company and carriers--Legal notice under Section 10 was served on carriers--Mere fact that in consignment words at owner’s risk were written did not absolve carriers of its liability--Suit of insurance company for recovery rightly decreed. (P.10)