Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Kuldeep Singh & Anr. v. Urjinder Singh & Anr.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2481
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Civil Revision No. 3629 of 2009 (O&M)
Kuldeep Singh & Anr.
v.
Urjinder Singh & Anr.
{Decided on 14/09/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. HPS Ghuman, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr.Tejinder Joshi, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.1, R.17--Impleadment of party--Amendment of plaint--Plaintiff filed suit for declaration challenging the will--During pendency application for impleadment of vendee to whom property was sold, was allowed--Revision against--Held; That the plaintiff was within his right to implead such person as may be necessary for effective adjudication of the list between the parties.(P.8 &9)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.1,R.10--Impleadment of party--The vendees could not move an application for being impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as the principle of lis pendence will apply. (P.9)
------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2482
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Civil Revision No. 6660 of 2008 (O&M)
Ismail and Anr.
v.
Hajra
{Decided on 11/09/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.S. Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate.
(A) Customary Law--Meo tribe of District Gurgaon--The rights of the women in agricultural tribes of meos was put at par with the rights of karta in a joint Hindu family property and she could alienate the property for her legal necessity--Therefore, she could not be restrained from selling the same. (P.6 & 10)
(B) Joint Hindu Family--Ancestral property--Alienation of--Unless the alienation in fact is completed there would be no cause of action for any coparcener to maintain a suit because the right is only to challenge the alienation made and there is no right recognized in law to maintain a suit to prevent the proposed sale. (P.8)
The principle that an injunction can be granted for preventing waste by a manager for karta obviously would not be applicable to such a suit because the proposed alienation of an alleged need or the benefit of the estate cannot be said to be an act of waste by any stretch of reasoning--A coparcener has no right to maintain a suit for permanent injunction restraining the manager or the karta from alienating the coparcenary property and his right is only to challenge the same and to recover the property after it has come into being.
CASES CITED
1. Jujhar Singh v. Giani Talok Singh, 1986 PLJ 346. (Para 8)
2. Naresh & Anr. v. Babu Lal & Ors., 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 459. (Para 9)
3. Sunil Kumar v. Ram Parkash, 1988 PLJ 227 (SC). (Para 9)

--------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2485 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha
Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2009 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 369 of 2006]
Jugesh Sehgal
v.
Shamsher Singh Gogi
{Decided on 10/07/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Badri Prasad Singh, Anil Gaur, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Reepak Kansal (for G.K. Bansal), Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Dishonour of Cheque--Account from where the cheque was issued was not held by the accused but was held by some other person--Accused not guilty of offence under S.138
(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138--Dishonour of Cheque--Account from where the cheque was issued was not held by the accused but was held by some other person--Accused not guilty of offence under S.138 (Para 17)
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138--Dishonour of cheque--To constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:
(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;
(ii) The cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;
(iii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
(iv) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
(v) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
(vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice;
________________