Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Labh Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
C.W.P. No.20680 of 2008
Labh Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 15/12/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. I.S. Saggu, Advocate.
For the caveator-Respondent No.4: Ms. Poonam Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate.
Co-operative Law--Membership of co-operative society--Regularisation of--Petitioner illegally got himself enrolled as member being legal heir of ‘I’--As per record of society respondent no.4 was nominated as nominee of ‘I’ during his life time--Therefore, respondent no.4 was entitled to be enrolled as member of society--Induction of petitioners as member of society wholly illegal--|Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. (Para 7 & 8)

------------------
Smt. Hira Devi v. State of Punjab
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 104
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. 15416 of 2007
Smt. Hira Devi
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 07/11/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Iqbal Singh Rangpuri, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Allotment of House--Power of resumption/cancellation of plots, houses and commercial sites etc. should be exercised only as last report.
Land and Property Law--Allotment--Cancellation of--Unauthorised construction--Eviction--Allotment of house under E.W.S.H. scheme--Entire amount of installment paid--Allotment of house cancelled on 13.11.1992 on ground of unauthorised construction--No steps taken over a period of 10 years to implement cancellation order--Only stay taken on 16.5.2003 when notice of eviction was sent--Thereafter petitioner availed remedy of appeal and revision--Despite removing of unauthorised construction revisional authority upheld order of cancellation of allotment--Not justified--Depriving the petitioner of her title to the small hutment allotted to her under the E.W.S.G.H.S. would be disproportionate to the object of planned development as postulated in allotment letter--Order of cancellation of allotment of house set aside--However, penalty of Rs.5000/- imposed for keeping unauthorised construction for longer time--Held; Power of resumption/cancellation of plots, houses and commercial sites etc. should be exercised only as last report--|Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, Sections 45 and 46. (Para 5, 6, 9 & 11)

--------------------
Anil Sachar v. M/s Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd.
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. D. Anand
Criminal Misc. No.A-379-MA of 2007
Anil Sachar
v.
M/s Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd.
{Decided on 16/12/2008}
For the Appellants: Mr. Punit Kansal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Dishonour of cheque--Offence by company--Cheque issued by director of company in discharge of liability of its sister concern company--No averment in complaint about commonness of Board of Directors between two concerns--Complaint quashed.
(A) Dishonour of Cheque--Contractual liability--Averment in complaint that in order to discharge liability of making payments accused issued two cheques in favour of complainant through their sister concern duly signed by one of its director--No averment that indicated director issued that cheque in order to discharge liability which respondent No.1 had incurred--In order to attract the applicability of the provisions of Section 138 of the Act, it was incumbent upon the appellants/complainant to make a precise averment that the commonness of the Board of Directors between the two indicated concerns notwithstanding, the cheques under reference had been issued by the indicated Director for discharge of the liability incurred by the other concern--Finding exoneration of respondent/accused upheld--|Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138. (Para 11, 12, 13 & 14)
(B) Dishonour of cheque--Offence by company--Cheque issued by director of company in discharge of liability of its sister concern company--No averment in complaint about commonness of Board of Directors between two concerns--Accused held not liable--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138.
------------------
Surjit Singh v. Tejinder Singh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Revision No. 6226 of 2008
Surjit Singh
v.
Tejinder Singh
{Decided on 20/11/2008}
For the petitioner: Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate.
(A) Rent Law--Eviction--Personal Necessity--Landlord, 100% blind wanted demised premises for running S.T.D./P.C.O. booth with help of his wife--Ground of bonafide personal necessity made out--Land lord denied eviction for 12 years due to pending litigation for a meager rent of Rs.125/-.--Eviction of tenant upheld--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-A.
(B) Rent Law--Eviction--Change of use--Condition in rent note that change of user is not permitted until written consent is recorded--Shop given on rent for running business of photography is now used for running shoe shop--Eviction upheld--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-A. (Para 15)
(C) Rent Law--Eviction--Revision--If view formulated by learned appellate court is one which is possible and is based on true appreciation of evidence--High Court should refrain from re-appraisal and re-appreciation of evidence while exercising revisional jurisdiction--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-A. (Para 15)
--------------------