Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Dr. R.N. Swami v. Surinder Singh
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 2211 of 2009 (O&M)
Dr. R.N. Swami
v.
Surinder Singh
{Decided on 27/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.41 R.27--Additional evidence--Sought to be produced in second appeal--Documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence were within the knowledge of the appellant during the pendency of the case before the learned trial Court as well as learned lower appellate Court--No steps taken to produce on record--Documents not relevant with matter in issue between the parties--Not shown to be required by the court to give effective justice to the parties--Case for production of additional evidence--Not made out.
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.34--Interest--Claim for interest--No agreement between the parties--Interest only @ 6% granted by lower court - Order upheld.
----------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No.2480 of 2004
The Janta Panjola, CASS,Panjola, Tehsil and District Patiala
v.
M /S Daulat Ram, Kishori Lal, Commission Agents, Balbera & Anr.
{Decided on 09/03/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Chaudhary, Advocate.
Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, S.79--Suit against Co--operative society--Service of notice before filing the suit--When mandatory--Dispute pertaining to the supply of paddy to the appellants--Touched the business of the appellant-society--Dispute came very well within the ambit of the affairs touching the business of the appellant society and hence, the service of notice as a pre-requisite to the filling of the suit was essential and mandatory.
----------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
CWP No.2678 of 1989
R.S. Prasher & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 24/03/2009}
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, S.26--Recovery of excess payment--Order of recovery of amount paid as overtime work compensation-- Petitioners were paid extra wages for overtime work they had performed--Stopped on the ground of being Government Servants--Not entitled to claim benefit under the Act--Factum of having worked overtime not denied--Not a of real over payment--Would not be entitled to make recovery.
------------
Harimder Pal Singh @ Harjinder Pal Singh v. Madan Mohan & Anr.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand
Civil Revision No. 2705 of 2009
Harimder Pal Singh @ Harjinder Pal Singh
v.
Madan Mohan & Anr.
{Decided on 26/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Caveator/Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Khurana, Advocate.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.18, R.3--Rebuttal evidence--Scope and extent to which same can be allowed--No rebuttal to evidence of the defendant--Only competent to produce the same in case of their being an issue of rebuttal--Plaintiff-petitioner had closed the evidence in affirmative--Essential onus to prove the plea of affirmative character would be upon the party filling a case--Opposite party shall discharge the onus of proving the issues it raised--In response thereto too, it is only in the latter category of cases that the plaintiff to a cause shall have entitlement to adduce rebuttal evidence--A clear distinction about the nature of evidence a party filling a cause is entitled to lead in rebuttal.
------------