Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Krishan v. State of Haryana
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 721 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary
Crl. Appeal No. 497-DB of 2007
Krishan
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 04/03/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Partap Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
Murder--Circumstantial evidence--Blind murder--Material witnesses not supporting case of prosecution and turned hostile--Accused acquitted.
Criminal Law--Murder--Circumstantial evidence--Hostile witness--Appeal against conviction--Case of blind murder as dead body of deceased was found lying in abandoned plot--Material witnesses not supporting case of prosecution and turned hostile--Chain of prosecution case not complete and link evidence missing--Prosecution story seems to be suspicious if statement of all witnesses alongwith circumstances are considered together--Circumstantial evidence not sufficient to hold accused guilty for alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt--Accused acquitted--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 and 201. (Paras 17, 18, 22, 23, 24 & 25)
------------------------
Smt. Chotto v. Virender Singh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 726
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
RSA No. 284 of 2003
Smt. Chotto
v.
Virender Singh
{Decided on 03/03/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. J.K.Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Additional evidence--Appellant unable to point out that document sought to be produced on record by way of additional evidence was helpful in any manner--No ground to allow appellant at this stage to lead additional evidence for the same.
(A) Civil Procedure--Injunction--Permanent injunction--Plaintiff failed to prove his ownership and possession over suit property--There exist a street in suit property--Appellant/plaintiff failed to point out any misreading or misinterpretation in evidence on record while recording these findings--Suit for permanent injunction restrain defendant to encroach upon land owned and possessed by plaintiff rightly dismissed by Court below--|Civil Procedure Code, 1098, Order 39, Rule 1 & 2. (Para 15)
(B) Civil Procedure--Additional evidence--Appellant unable to point out that document sought to be produced on record by way of additional evidence was helpful in any manner--No ground to allow appellant at this stage to lead additional evidence for the same--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 41, Rule 27. (Para 15)
------------
Ashraf v. Suleman
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 728
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No.2262 of 2006 (O&M)
Ashraf
v.
Suleman
{Decided on 06/03/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate for Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Nemo.
IMPORTANT POINT
Mutation itself does not create any title or right in favour of an individual.
Revenue Law--Mutation--Injunction--Suit for possession--Appellants/plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession over suit property on basis of mutation which was sanctioned in their favour after death of original owner--No material from which it can be inferred that appellant inherited suit property after death of original owner--Mutation itself does not create any title or right in favour of an individual--Suit rightly dismissed by Courts below. (Para 11)
----------------
Ram Kishan v. Chief Administrator, PUDA, Mohali
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 730 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jora Singh
C.W.P. No. 234 of 2007
Ram Kishan
v.
Chief Administrator, PUDA, Mohali
{Decided on 17/12/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lall, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Brig. B.S. Taunque (Retd.), Advocate.
Land and Property Law--Allotment of house--Default in payment of Instalments--Penal Interest--Demand notice charging instalments and penal interest from date of allotment--Physical possession of house was delivered to allottee at the spot when he informed that police post was in existence at ground floor--On inspection house locked and was found to be that of allottee--Contention that physical possession of house was not given--Not acceptable--Impugned demand notice upheld--|Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972--Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulations) Act, 1964. (Para 9)
------------------
Pritam Singh v. Mohinder Singh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 734
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
RSA No.2766 of 2003
Pritam Singh
v.
Mohinder Singh
{Decided on 22/12/2008}
For the Appellants: Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Partition--Document not mentioning details of khasra numbers of land partitioned and exchanged--Document not reliable.
Land and Property Law--Partition--Exchange--Document of partition silent about details of khasra numbers of land partitioned and exchanged by predecessor in interest of plaintiffs and defendants--Moreover oral exchange in State of Punjab and Haryana is permissible if it is reduced into writing and it requires stamp duty and registration--Since document of partition is uncertain, vague, unregistered and not entered in revenue record same cannot be relied--No relief can be granted to plaintiffs on basis of said document--|Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 118. (Paras 7 & 8)
CASES CITED:
1. M/s Dharam Pal Mohinder Nath v. Nirmal Singh, 1999 (2) CCC 311 (P&H) (Para 7)
2. Shiv Ram v. Smt. Bimla Devi, 2000 (2) CCC 333 (P&H) (Para 8)
3. Satyawan v. Raghbir, 2002(2) CCC 381 (P&H) (Para 8)
------------------
Piyush Mandhar v. Guru Nanak Dev University
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 736 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
C.W.P.No.17391 of 2008
Piyush Mandhar
v.
Guru Nanak Dev University
{Decided on 09/12/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate and Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Unfair means--Mass coping--Evidence against petitioners holding them guilty of indulging themselves in common dictation in different groups--No interference in disqualifying petitioners from appearing in any examination of University for a period of three years.
Education Law--Examination--Unfair means--Mass coping--B.A. LLB course--Inquiry report shows applicability of provision under which petitioners found guilty--Court on earlier date during proceedings called for answer sheets of petitioners and on perusal of same findings recorded by Inquiry Officer was found correct--There is clear evidence against petitioners holding them guilty of indulging themselves in common dictation in different groups--Supervisory staff also indulged in helping petitioners in mass copying--No illegality or violation of any statutory provisions--No interference in decision of standing committee disqualifying petitioners from appearing in any examination of University for a period of three years--|University Calendar, Volume III, 1999, Ordinance 10(h)(ii) and (j). (Paras 15, 16, 17 & 18)