Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Baldev Raj v. Dinesh Kumar & Anr.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2373
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
CR No. 1849 of 2008
Baldev Raj
v.
Dinesh Kumar & Anr.
{Decided on 19/08/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate.
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.52--Doctrine of lis pendens--Applicability of--Vendor--ID suffered decree on basis of compromise after sale of property to objector--Principles of lis pendens could not be applied in view of law laid down by supreme court in case 2005(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 786 (SC) --Learned executing court to see whether objections filed were maintainable or not after framing of issues and letting parties to lead evidence as rightly held by appellate court. (Para 19-21)
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.52--Doctrine of lis pendens--In order to constitute lis pendens following elements must be present : -
1. There must be a suit or proceeding pending in a Court of competent jurisdiction.
2. The suit or proceeding must not be collusive.
3. The litigation must be one in which right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question.
4. There must be a transfer of or otherwise dealing with the property in dispute by any party to the litigation.
5. Such transfer must affect the rights of the other party that may ultimately accrue under the terms of the decree or order. (Para 15)
----------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
Civil Revision No. 3957 of 2008 (O&M)
M/s Daler Singh
v.
District Food & Supplies Controller, Kurukshetra
{Decided on 19/08/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.34--Arbitration proceedings--Award--Setting aside of--Limitation--Condonation of delay--Section 5 of limitation act not applicable to arbitration proceeding--Question of condition of delay do not arise. (Para 9)
(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.34--Arbitration Proceeding--Award--Setting aside of--Arbitration agreement was part of contract entered into between parties--Plea of petitioner that he has not signed agreement not tenable as agreement box signature of petitioner--However, inspite of the fact that if one of parties has not signed agreement arbitration agreement was said to be valid as parties had acted upon the contract. (P.9)
--------------