Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 849 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2009
Jagjit Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 06/03/2009}
(A) Criminal Law--Dowry Death--Cruelty--Deceased breathed her last within about one year and three months from the date of marriage while living in the house of her in laws--She was not suffering from any ailment prior to marriage and even after the marriage she continued to be hale and hearty--Trial Court acquitted the accused--High Court reversed acquittal--Appeal--High Court has analysed the evidence of the witnesses clearly keeping in view the parameters relating to the scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal--The analysis does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference--Since the minimum sentence has been awarded no scope to interfere in this appeal--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B and 498-A. (Paras 6 & 8)
(B) Words and Phrases--Dowry--Meaning of--Any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage. (Para 7)
---------------
Bhushan Kumar v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 852
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh
The Hon’ble Mrs. Daya Chaudhary
C.W.P.No.11612 of 2008
Bhushan Kumar
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 09/03/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate,
Mr. Rakesh Gupta and Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
(A) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of Land--Public purpose--Urgency provision--Explanations given for showing urgency do not justify dispensing with enquiry under Sections 5A--Two notifications under Sections 4 read with Sections 17(1) of the act issued with a gap of five months in respect of same land--Reason housing Gurudwara was inadvertently included in earlier notification--However in reply filed by State this is reiterated that there was no charge in master plan which contrary to assertion of State--Nothing to show application of mind on part of Authority in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act--Impugned notifications quashed--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 6 and 17. (Paras 19 & 20)
(B) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of Land--Public purpose--Urgency provision--Construction of Ring Road--Ring road required just to divert traffic from city area--It is not a case of traffic jam or congestion in any area of National Highways--Therefore, it cannot be said that proposed Ring Road alone would bear major traffic load from the city--Notifications quashed--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, 6 and 17. (Para 18)
--------------
UHBVNL v. Brijesh Kumar
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 861
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
RSA No.900 of 2008 (O&M)
UHBVNL
v.
Brijesh Kumar
{Decided on 19/01/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Chand Ram Ola, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate with Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate.
Electricity Law--Meter checking--As per the circulars, an opportunity has to be provided to the consumer to get his metering equipment examined in his presence and the same was also required to be notified before assessing any penalty--No opportunity of being heard before assessing the amount of penalty given--Impugned order on basis of report of Lab, set aside--|Electricity Act, 2003. (Para 9)
--------------
Roshan Lal Singla v. Suresh Kumar
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
RSA No.2741 of 2005(O&M)
Roshan Lal Singla
v.
Suresh Kumar
{Decided on 24/12/2008}
For the Appellant: Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure--Local Commissioner--Report of--That it is open for the Court to examine the Commissioner on matters referred to him in his report or as to the manner in which he had made the investigation. It is open for the parties also to examine the Commissioner on matters referred to him in his report or on the manner in which he had conducted the investigation. This is the only interpretation which can be placed upon sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 CPC. There is no other interpretation possible of this sub-rule. It is a different matter if neither the Court nor any of the parties takes any objection to the report. In such a situation the report becomes final and becomes part of the record and also can be taken as piece of evidence. But, once a party objects to it and specifically wants that the Commissioner be examined, the Court has no option but to examine the Commissioner. Unless that is done, the Commissioner’s report cannot either form part of the record nor can it become a piece of evidence which could be relied upon at the stage of disposal of the suit--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 26, Rule 10. (Para 11)
(B) Civil Procedure--Local Commissioner--Report of--Objection were filed--Neither any supporting evidence except self serving statement produced nor local commissioner was summoned--As such due weight has to be given to report of Local Commissioner--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 20, Rule 10. (Para 11)
--------------