Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Bhagwan Dass v. Prem Chand
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Civil Revision No.349 of 2001
Bhagwan Dass
v.
Prem Chand
{Decided on 20/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, Advocate.
Rent Law--Eviction--Unsafe and unfit for human habitation--Demises premises comprised only of one room and verandah--One wall and roof of single room having collapsed demised premises in damaged unsafe and unfit for human habitation--Demised premises has not scope for tenant to shift into another portion of building to permit repair of remaining part of building--Thus, demised premises cannot be repaired while tenant remains in occupation--Order of ejectment upheld--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13. (Paras 8, 9 & 10)
--------------------
Gurpreet Singh v. The Punjab State Co-operative…
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Criminal Revision No.2137 of 2006
Gurpreet Singh
v.
Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd.
{Decided on 15/05/2009}
Present: Mr. S.S.Bhinder, Advocate.
Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
Dishonour of Cheque--Conviction--Cheque dishonoured with remarks Referred to drawer which means insufficient funds--Computer operator of bank deposed that cheque was not issued by their branch with a view to help petitioner--Documentary evidence on record belies his statement to this effect--Court below rightly convicted and sentence petitioner under Section 138--|Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138.
--------------------
Gram Panchayat, Bidhal v. Satbir & Ors.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 2734 of 2006 (O&M)
Gram Panchayat, Bidhal
v.
Satbir & Ors.
{Decided on 15/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate.
Civil Procedure--Injunction--Counter claim--For purpose of injunction Court was only to see possession of parties--Once plaintiff-respondent had taken a stand that he had no intention to interfere with possession of Gram Panchayat over khasra No.130 and was only to protect his possession and ownership over khasra no.189--Trial Court justified in accepting suit of plaintiff and also counter claim of Gram Panchayat restraining plaintiff from interfering in possession of Gram Panchayat over khasra no. 130--In suit for injunction question of title not be determined--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1 & 2. (Para 12)