Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Dharmender v. Om Parkash
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 824
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.1440 of 2008 (O&M)
Dharmender
v.
Om Parkash
{Decided on 03/03/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Court Fee--Definite averments in plaint which states that plaintiff’s title to property was under cloud by defendants in valid sale--Plaintiff therefore, were bound to treat result of injunction as consequential to relief of declaration and pay Court Fee.
Court Fee--Ad valorem Court Fee--Suit for declaration and permanent injunction--Definite averments in plaint which states that plaintiff’s title to property was under cloud by defendants in valid sale--Plaintiff have expressed apprehension that if defendants succeed in their action which was against law, unjustified and forcible the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss which could not be compensated in any manner and that suit shall become infructuous--Plaintiff therefore, were bound to treat result of injunction as consequential to relief of declaration and pay Court Fee the under Section 7(iv) (d) of Court Fee Act.-- |Court Fee Act, 1870, Section 7(iv)(d)--Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34 (Para 5 & 6)
--------------
Sunita v. Bijender Singh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand
F.A.O. No. 162-M of 2007
Sunita
v.
Bijender Singh
{Decided on 05/03/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Jagbir Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Tapan Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate.
Matrimonial Law--Annulment of marriage--Petition by husband on averment that wife married him during course of her subsisting marriage--Alleged first husband of wife not examined at trial--Photographer of alleged first marriage have no negative of photographs relied for annulment of marriage--Photographs exhibited not pertaining to phera ceremony--Photograph appears to be a case of super imposition--Wife nowhere conceded that photograph pertains to her alleged first marriage--She only conceded that she appears in photograph--Learned trial Court inappropriately placed reliance on testimony--Petition by husband for annulment of marriage dismissed--|Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 11 & 12 (Para 9)
------------
Agya Ram v. U.T. Administration
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 829
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
C.W.P. No. 8127 of 2002
Agya Ram
v.
U.T. Administration
{Decided on 04/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate with Mr. Shallit Saini, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Allotment of built-up Booth sites--Reservation for Kashmiri Migrants--Eligibility--Non-possession of valid land cart/driving licence or the fact that they did not own any cart is inapplicable in case of Kashmiri Migrants
Land and Property Law--Allotment of built-up Booth sites--Reservation for Kashmiri Migrants--Eligibility--Non-possession of valid land cart/driving licence or the fact that they did not own any cart is inapplicable in case of Kashmiri Migrants--Fact that authorities allowed petitioners to sum stalls may be in a tented accommodation is sufficient proof of implied permission to them to run their petty business as a source of livelihood--Copy of verification report produced proves that petitioners are genuine and Kashmiri Migrants--Held; That petitioners fully satisfy requirement of Rule 5 A of Rules and are eligible for consideration for allotment of built-up both sets--| Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, Section 22--Allotment/Transfer of Built-up Booth in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase Basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991, Rule 5-A (Para 7, 9 & 12)
------------