Monday, March 15, 2010

M/s AA Enterprises v. Er. J.S. Sekhon…..
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1073
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
FAO No.1583 of 2007
M/s AA Enterprises
v.
Er. J.S. Sekhon, Purchase Officer-V, PSEB, Patiala
{Decided on 16/01/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
Civil Procedure--Restoration of appeal--Dismissal-in-default for non-prosecution--Whenever Counsel appearing on behalf of party pleads no instructions, Court should serve actual date notice upon party concerned who had engaged that advocate--Application of restoration of appeal allowed--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 41, Rule 19. (Paras 3 & 4)
------------------
Sumedha Nagpal v. Gaurav Nagpal
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1074
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
C.R No. 1383 of 2009
Sumedha Nagpal
v.
Gaurav Nagpal
{Decided on 24/03/2009}
Present : Petitioner in person.
Respondent in person.
Child Law--Custody of Minor--Visitation rights of father--Dispute regarding visitation rights of minor child between mother and father--As per order of Supreme Court father would have custody of child for one week when school may be off for two weeks or more--As learned Trial Court rightly pointed out the fact that during this period child would have to go to school on two occasion for extra curricular activities would not mitigate against the fact that in reality the children have a break from 16.3.2009 to 1.4.2009 between their final exams and the start of the new academic year--However there are only seven days before minor has to return to school--Mother directed to handover minor to father. (Para 6 & 7)
----------------
Anuraj v. M/s Sheel Buildcon Private Ltd.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand
Civil Revision No. 3561 of 2008 and Civil Revision No. 3560 of 2008
Anuraj
v.
M/s Sheel Buildcon Private Ltd.
{Decided on 17/03/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents in Civil Revision No. 3561 of 2008: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents in Civil Revision No. 3560 of 2008: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Alternate remedy--A party cannot have simultaneous resort to all alternative remedies available to it.
(A) Civil Procedure--Impleadment of Necessary Party--Suit for specific performance--Subsequent vendee already filed suit for declaration that it is bonafide purchaser--It could not validity apply for leave of the Court to be impleaded as party--More so when purchase has been made during pendency of litigation and in violation of stay order--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 1, Rule 10. (Para 16)
(B) Civil Procedure--Impleadment--Alternative remedy suit for specific performance subsequent vendee already filed suit for declaration that he is Bonafide purchaser--Even when more than one recourse is available to a party, resort can be had to only one remedy at a time. (Para 16)
(C) Civil Procedure--Ex-parte decree--Setting aside of--No issue framed on point of sufficiency or otherwise of grounds for setting aside impugned ex-parte judgment and decree--Matter listed before trial Court to proceed further in light of observation made--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13. (Paras 10 & 11)
----------------
Brahma Nand v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1079
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
C.M. No.23925 of 2008 and Civil Writ Petition No.16433 of 2007 (O&M)
Brahma Nand
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 23/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. S. Cheema, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
For the Applicant: Mr. A. S. Gill, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.4: Mr. T. P. Singh, Advocate.
Revenue Law--Village Common Land--Ejectment--Encroachment--Encroachment alleged to have been done by petitioner not substantiated by evidence and material on record--In view of report of local Commissioner petitioner cannot be said to have encroached any passage--Order passed by Commissioner remanding case to Collector set-aside--Order of Collector upheld--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, Section 7. (Para 6)
--------------
Satya Narain v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1081
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Crl. Revision No. 1196 of 2002
Satya Narain
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 25/02/2009}
Present: Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Lichmi, complainant and Dropti, injured, in person.
Ms. Naveen Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.
Criminal Law--Quashing of FIR--Grevious hurt with dangerous weapon--Judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by trial Court and judgment of Appellate Court in appeal affirming judgment of trial Court on basis of compromise--Held; That once matter is compromised by parties no useful purpose shall be served by proceeding with revision petition on merits as that would amount to sheer wastage of time of Court, harassment to parties and abuse of process of Court--Even other compromise is neither abhorrent to lawful composition of society nor would it promote savager--Petition under Section 482 accepted resulting to acquittal of petitioners- 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225 relied--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 323, 324 and 326 r/w 34.

------------------
Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1084 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly
Criminal Appeal No. 598 of 2009
Sadhu Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 31/03/2009}
IMPORTANT POINT
Private defence--Right commences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt, or threat to commit the offence, although the offence may not have been committed but not until that there is that "reasonable apprehension".
(A) Criminal Law--Murder--Private defence--Factual scenario shows that the complainant was returning after ploughing the land in front of the house of the accused but correct genesis of the situation has not been brought on record--Deceased was about to hit the accused with a spear--Even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that the accused persons were at some point of time exercising the right of private defence, it was exceeded--Doctor found various injuries on the body of the deceased--Trial Court and the High Court proceeded on the basis as if the accused had time to go into his house and on that he picked up a gun--It was nobody's case that the accused went inside and brought a gun--Claim that the accused persons came and attacked the deceased and PWs; not established--Plea regarding exercise of right of private defence cannot be sustained--However, the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part I IPC--The conviction is altered accordingly--Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 323 and 34--Arms Act, 1959, Section 27. (Para 4 and 9)
(B) Criminal Law--Private Defence--Commencement and continuance of right --Right commences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt, or threat to commit the offence, although the offence may not have been committed but not until that there is that reasonable apprehension--The right lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 102 and 105. (Para 7)
(C) Criminal Law--Private Defence--A plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculation--While considering whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, it is not relevant whether he may have a chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor--In order to find whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, the entire incident must be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 102 and 105. (Para 6)

---------------
Sunil v. Siri Chand
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1086
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
RSA No.2595 of 2008 (O&M)
Sunil
v.
Siri Chand
{Decided on 19/12/2008}
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): None.
Land and Property Law--Sale of land--Validity of--Bahi entries--Property in question allotted to plaintiff--Mutation in his favour already entered in on basis of allotment letter--No evidence that immovable property of more than Rs. 100/- was transferred by vendor to defendants by way of registered instrument--Bahi entries in favour of defendants in this regard does not confer any title--Suit of plaintiff rightly decreed--|Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54--Evidence Act, 1872. (Paras 8 & 10)

------------------
Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1088
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Permod Kohli
CWP No.3420 of 1988
Harbans Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 20/11/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Sahu, A.A.G.
IMPORTANT POINT
Stamp duty--Deficient--Neither Collector initiated suo moto action nor there is any reference from sub-registrar--Impugned notice issued by Assistant Collector who is not competent authority--No enquiry held--Impugned notice quashed.
(A) Stamp Law--Stamp duty--Deficient--Registration of sale deed--Show cause notice--Natural Justice--Neither Collector initiated suo moto action nor there is any reference from sub-registrar--Impugned notice for deposit of deficient stamp duty issued pursuant to an audit report and that too after a period of two years--Impugned notice issued by Assistant Collector who is not competent authority--No enquiry held--No opportunity of hearing afforded violating principles of natural justice--Impugned notice liable to be quashed--|Stamp Act, 1899, Section 47-A. (Paras 7 & 8)
(B) Stamp Law--Deficient stamp duty--Recovery of--Procedure to be followed--If the Registering Authority has reason to believe that the value of the property or consideration reflected therein has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may register the instrument and thereafter refer the same to the Collector for determination of the value of the property or the consideration for payment of proper duty payable thereon--On receipt of reference, the Collector shall, after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under this Act, determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty--Collector is empowered to initiate suo moto or on receipt of reference from the Inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of District in whose jurisdiction the property subject matter of instrument is situated, initiate proceedings as to the correctness of the value of the property or consideration. He has the power to call for and examine the instrument for determination of the value or the consideration. However, the action under this sub-section is permissible within two years from the date of registration of the instrument--|Stamp Act,1899, Section 47-A.
(Para 6 and 8)
------------------
Hari Ram v. Satbir Singh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1091
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Crl. Revn. No. 1387 of 2001
Hari Ram
v.
Satbir Singh
{Decided on 25/02/2009}
For the Revision-Petitioner: Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Godara, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Ms. Naveen Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
(A) Criminal Law--Dowry Death--Acquittal--No reliable evidence to prove that deceased was harassed in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death--No medical opinion to the effect that it was either suicidal death or death occurred on account of burn injuries or administration of poisonous substance--Death of deceased not otherwise than under normal circumstances cremation of deceased took place in presence of complainant her father--Explanation furnished by accused that deceased was suffering from diarrhoea and could not recover from same resulting into her death was correct--Ingredient for constituting offence punishable under Section 304-B not proved--Findings of trial Court neither illegal nor perverse nor erroneous on account of misreadings of evidence--No interference with finding of acquittal--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B and 201. (Paras 8, 12 & 13)
(B) Criminal Law--Revisional Jurisdiction--Court cannot re-evaluate and re-appreciate the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless it comes to the conclusion, that the findings arrived at, by the trial Court, are perverse, illegal, or erroneous on account of the misreading of evidence, produced by the prosecution. (Para 14)

------------------
Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1095 (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. 7730 of 2008
Karnail Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 06/01/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab.
Land and Property Law--Acquisition of land--Public purpose--Failure to take possession of land--Acquisition of land for construction of link canal to main SYL namely Bassi Distributory--Notification issued on 2.12.1988--Objections heard under Section 5-A and declaration under Section 6 issued--Award announced on 4.11.1990--On account of dispute concerning alignment of link canal payment as per award was not paid reference made--No decision at Government level taken--Revenue record continue petitioners as owners in possession till 2006--Respondents have as owners in possession of land nor paid amount under Section 17--Petitioners have constructed their houses and Gram Panchayat has also constructed a chaupal there--Health centre is also constructed on land in dispute--Directions issued that Government by keeping in view sections 48(1) shall take a decision whether it wishes to continue with acquisition or not within 2 months--If Government decides to withdraw from acquisition then land would revert back to its owners alongwith payment of compensation under Section 48--If Government decides to acquire land then a copy of decision be sent to petitioner under registered A-D cover--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 5A, 6, 17(3A), 48. (Paras 9,10,11, 12 & 13)
--------------------
Bhagwan Bai v. Chiranji Lal
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1099
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
ESA No. 472 of 2005
Bhagwan Bai
v.
Chiranji Lal
{Decided on 20/01/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. L.N. Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure--Execution proceeding--Objections--Principle of lis pendence--Categorical allegation containing objections that decree sought to be executed is obtained by collusion by DH with JD--Provisions of Sections 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 shall not apply--Court has to adjudicate this fact after framing an issue in this regard and give proper opportunity to both parties to lead their evidence--Case remanded back to executing Court with direction to frame appropriate issue and after allowing them to lead evidence decide the matter--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 21, Rules 97, 100, 101 & 102--Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 52. (Paras 12 & 13)
--------------
M/s Akash Ganga v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
CWP No.8048 of 2008
M/s Akash Ganga
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 06/01/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Sangita Dhanda, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. R.D. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
For the Respondent(s) No.2 to 4: Mr. Arun Walia and Shri Munish Bansal, Advocates.
Land and Property Law--Allotment of booth sites--Delay--Allotment of booth sites on 12.3.1990--Possession of site could be affected only on 17.1.2008 on account of some unauthorized structures/shops in existence at site--Unauthorized constructions were to be removed by HUDA--Petitioners were deprived of enjoyment of sites of years together--Petitioner liable to pay interest only from date when possession was offered--|Haryana Urban Development Authority Act,. (Paras 12, 13, 14 & 15)
----------------
Manjit Singh v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
RFA No.4500 of 2001
Manjit Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 18/11/2008}
For the Appellants: Mr. B.S. Guliani, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. H.S. Hooda, A.G, Haryana, with Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. D.A.G, Haryana.
Land and Property Law--Acquisition of Land--Compensation--Enhancement of--Market value--Amount of 1,76,000/- per acre determined out of sale deeds pertaining to same village and prior to issuance of notification--Sale deeds pertaining to small piece of land--Cut of 30% for value of sale deeds would be just and appropriate--Claimants entitled to amount of Rs.1,23,200/- per acre instead of Rs.46,875/- per acre--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, 6.
--------------------
Abhey Singh v. Shri Arjun Singh Kirpa Ram Charitable Trust
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.2511 of 2001 (O&M)
Abhey Singh
v.
Shri Arjun Singh Kirpa Ram Charitable Trust
{Decided on 24/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Ms. Seema Jagpal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Rent Law--Eviction--Subletting--Nearness of relationship between parties by themselves will not give rise to a presumption that such relationship could not establish sub-tenancy.
Rent Law--Eviction--Subletting--Nearness of relationship between parties by themselves will not give rise to a presumption that such relationship could not establish sub-tenancy--Exclusive possession of a person other than tenant must be adequately established by such person who is not a tenant and there will be a presumption drawn in favour of landlord and transaction is only sub-tenancy--Fact that tenant had removed himself from village to yet another business would be a factor to prove that tenant had forsaken his possession to another person who would be regarded as sub tenant--Order of ejectment passed by Appellate Authority fully accords with evidence and law--No interference.

----------------
Apeejay Education Society v. HUDA
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1112 (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
CWP NO.10749 of 2007
Apeejay Education Society
v.
Haryana Urban Development Authority
{Decided on 04/11/2008}
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. H. L. Tikku, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate and Ms. Yashmeet, Advocate, Mr. Aashish Chopra, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Resumption of site--Misuse of site for running of prenursery/nursery classes in school--Allotment letter as well as terms and conditions of lease deed do not contemplate any classification sought to be invoked in support of misuse--Order of resumption quashed.
(A) Land and Property Law--Resumption of site--Misuse of site for running of prenursery/nursery classes in school--Petitioners allotted land for construction of School building on lease--Allotment letter as well as terms and conditions of lease deed do not contemplate any classification sought to be invoked in support of misuse--Word ‘School’ would naturally include classes at all levels like prenursery/nursery/K.G./middle/secondary/senior secondary--On basis of imaginary classification which was not in sight in 1973--No violation could be alleged--Order of resumption quashed--|Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, Section 17.
(B) Words and Phrases--School--Meaning of--Word ‘School’ would naturally include classes at all levels like prenursery/nursery/K.G./middle/secondary/senior secondary.
------------------------
State of Haryana v. Dilawar
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1115 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Garewal
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Criminal Appeal No.193-DBA of 2001
State of Haryana
v.
Dilawar
{Decided on 26/02/2009}
For the Appellant - State: Mr. H.S. Sran, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
For the Respondent: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate.
(A) Criminal Law--Rape--Attempt to commit rape--Delay in filing FIR--Acquittal--Delay of six and half hours in lodging FIR--Police Station 10 kms. from alleged place of occurrence--Father-in-law of prosecutrix present at home when she came in torn clothes--No satisfactory explanation furnished by prosecutrix as to what prevented her from immediately lodging the report--Trial Court right in coming to conclusion that unexplained delay in lodging FIR was fatal to case of prosecution--|Penal Code, 1860, Sections 366 and 376 r/w 511--Penal Code, 1860, Section 342 and 506.
(B) Criminal Law--Rape--Attempt to commit rape--Acquittal--No corroboration to statement of prosecutrix through medical evidence--Evidence of prosecutrix that accused forcibly took her to tube-well room and made an attempt to commit rape upon her not reliable--Trial Court right in discarding statement of prosecutrix and acquitting the accused--|Penal Code, 1860, Sections 366 and 376 r/w 511, Penal Code, 1860, Sections 342 and 506. (Para 14)
(C) Criminal Law--FIR--Delay in lodging--On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the prosecution story, as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential-that the delay in the lodging the first information report, should be satisfactorily explained--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 154. (Para 13)

--------------------
Moti Sagar v. Ram Murti
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.2407 of 1989 (O&M)
Moti Sagar
v.
Ram Murti
{Decided on 19/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Hemani Sarin, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate and Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (i), (ii) and (viii): Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Subletting--Nearness of relationship of tenant and alleged sub-tenants itself would not be a point to discredit the case of sub-tenancy.
Rent Law--Eviction--Subletting--Finding by lower Appellate Authority that father and brother are doing independent business from business carried on by original tenant--Plea of subletting established--Nearness of relationship of tenant and alleged sub-tenants itself would not be a point to discredit the case of sub-tenancy--Order of eviction upheld.

------------------
State of Punjab v. Gurbax Singh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
RFA No. 3003 of 1993
State of Punjab
v.
Gurbax Singh
{Decided on 22/01/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. AG Punjab.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.N. Saini, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of Land--Even post notification sale deed can be considered if it is in proximity in time and is a genuine sale instance.
Acquisition of Land--Once urbanization has come up and acquired land has gained potential for urbanization, fixing of market price on basis of agricultural quality loses its significance and entire land has to be considered as on quality.
(A) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of land--Compensation--Sale deed of post notification--Even post notification sale deed can be considered if it is in proximity in time and is a genuine sale instance--Sale deed 9 months subsequent to notification--Can be applied in view of decision of Supreme Court in Chiman Lal Hargovindass case after applying a cut of 15%--Impugned award modified to extent that appellant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.1,02,000/- per acre--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4 & 6. (Paras 15 & 16)
(B) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of land--Compensation--Market value--Uniform Rate--Land acquired for industrial purpose for use of limited company--Once urbanization has come up and acquired land has gained potential for urbanization, fixing of market price on basis of agricultural quality loses its significance and entire land has to be considered as on quality--Claimants entitled to compensation at uniform rate in respect of entire acquired land--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4 & 6. (Para 17)
--------------------
Kalyan Singh v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli
C.W.P. No.2331of 1983
Kalyan Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 03/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajinder. Chhokar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
For the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4: Mr. R.S. Budhwat, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal--Filing of Appeal--Non-deposit of 30 times of Land holdings tax before Collector at time of filing of appeal--Not denied in reply--Order set aside.
Revenue Law--Filing of Appeal--Prescribed Authority--Non-deposit of 30 times of Land holdings tax before Collector at time of filing of appeal--Not denied in reply--Impugned order of Collector and all subsequent orders passed set aside--|Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972, Section 18--Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973, Rules 3 and 13. (Paras 5 & 6)

------------------
Gulzari Ram v. Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1132
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal
Civil Writ Petition No. 4518 of 1985
Gulzari Ram
v.
Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab
{Decided on 14/11/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction--A member of Panchayat in his individual capacity cannot initiate action for eviction of a person in possession of shamlat deh which vests in Gram Panchayat.
Revenue Law--Village Common Land--Eviction--A member of Panchayat in his individual capacity cannot initiate action for eviction of a person in possession of shamlat deh which vests in Gram Panchayat--Authorities not justified in passing order of eviction moreover when claim of petitioner is admitted by Gram Panchayat--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 7. (Paras 7 & 8)

------------------
Randip Kaur v. Gurmeet Singh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand
F.A.O. No. 298-M of 2006
Randip Kaur
v.
Gurmeet Singh
{Decided on 15/04/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. D.K.Bhatti, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun K. Bakshi, Advocate.
Matrimonial Law--Divorce--Adultery--Allegation pertaining to illicit relationship of wife with brother of husband and one ‘J’ testified on oath by mother of former and father of latter--Their credit could not be impeached in course of cross-examination--Not even a single word on record on behalf of wife to rebut that part of evidence--Husband adduced almost unrebutted evidence in support of charge that wife had illicit relations--Order of dissolution of marriage upheld--|Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13. (Para 17)
------------------
Hamir Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Crl. Revision No. 551 of 2009
Hamir Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 15/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Criminal Law--Tress passing--Assault to outrage modesty--Probation--Petitioner with an intention to outrage modesty of complainant committed assault--Petitioner at time of incident of entering house of complainant was 18 years of age--Incident is of 9.10.2005--He faced trial and prosecution for three years now--Complainant stated to be 60 years of age--Both complainant and petitioner are of same village--Matter was reported to Panchayat but efforts made to settle matter did not materialize--FIR was registered three days after incident--As observed in Parkash’s case offence which petitioner was committed is definitely against accepted morals of our society, however, it cannot be said that he is a gone case never to be reclaimed back by civilized society--Petitioner is first offender--In facts and circumstances ends of justice would be met in case petitioner is given benefit of probation besides or during payment of Rs.5000/- as compensation to complainant--|Probation of Offenders Act, 1956, Section 4--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 451 and 354. (Paras 6 & 7)
-------------------
Ram Sawroop v. Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.5499 of 2009
Ram Sawroop
v.
Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon
{Decided on 15/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Village Common Lands--Proceeding under Section 7 are summary in nature--Principle of Resjudicata not applicable.
(A) Revenue Law--Village Common Land--Ejectment--Resjudicata--Ejectment sought on ground that Land in dispute is Rasta--Appellant in illegal possession of Rasta admitted by person present there at time of demarcation--Such finding on basis of spot inspection sufficient--Order of ejectment upheld in appeal--No interference--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 7. (Paras 3 & 4)
(B) Revenue Law--Village Common Land--Ejectment--Resjudicata--Proceeding under Section 7 are summary in nature--Principle of Resjudicata not applicable--Second application for ejectment not barred by Resjudicata in view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Singh case--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 7. (Para 4)

------------------
Madan Lal v. Pushpa
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No.4294 of 2005
Madan Lal
v.
Pushpa
{Decided on 16/04/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate with Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Ghuman, Advocate.
Civil Procedure--Affidavit--Transfer of plot--Dispute that appellant purportedly got affidavit from respondent in order to give effect to transfer of plot allotted to her by society--No evidence by appellant regarding passing of consideration makes whole things suspicious--An affidavit is not intended to create any title in favour of a person that too absolutely ambiguous having written in English and signed in Hindi in complete violation of provisions of Order 19, Rule 1 CPC--Apart, society not impleaded as party--No attempt made to get signature of respondent available on affidavit compared with her admitted ones--Appellant miserably failed to substantiate his case for any relief--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 19, Rule 1. (Paras 11, 12, 13 & 14)
------------------
M/S Amar Company v. M/S Radhey Mal Ram Lal
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1143
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No.2596 of 2006
M/S Amar Company, 489, Link Road, Faridabad City
v.
M/S Radhey Mal Ram Lal, Anaj Mandi, Old Faridabad
{Decided on 15/04/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate.
Limitation Law--Recovery suit--Period of Limitation--Computation of--Appellant used to purchase Hina leaves from respondent--Because it was merely a case where goods where being supplied and delivered and accounts between parties being not open, mutual and current--Article 14 of part II of schedule would govern the same--Therefore, respondent is entitled to recover amount of bill dated 14.12.1995 i.e. Rs.36,667.12/-.--Suit is barred by limitation qua rest of bills of prior date--|Limitation Act, 1963, Schedule, Article 1 of part 1--Limitation Act, 1963, Article 14 of Part II. (Paras 24 & 10 )
----------------------
Ajay Chopra v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1148
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-64911 of 2006
Ajay Chopra
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 15/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Respondents No.2 to 4: None.
For the Respondent No.5: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate.
Criminal Law--Transfer of case--Cheating--Prayer for transfer of five cases from Courts of Ludhiana to Court of competent jurisdiction outside Ludhiana--Both parties are practicing advocates in District Court Ludhiana, tension brews up in the Court when the parties appear in Court--Cases mentioned at Sr. No.(i) to (iv) being criminal revision petitions may in facts and circumstances transferred to Court of learned sessions Judge Fatehgarh Sahib--However, case mentioned in Sr. No. (v) is trial case pending in Court of JMIC in which 57 witnesses have been cited by prosecution for Ludhiana--Therefore, trial of case at Sr. No. (v) not liable to be transferred--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 407--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 467, 471, 120-B and 209. (Paras 7, 8 & 9)

------------------
Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
CWP No.15963 of 2007
Kartar Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 16/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana.
For the Respondent No.5: Mr.Vijay S.Kajla, Advocate.
Revenue Law--Village Common Land--Shamlat deh--Title of land--Ownership changed in 1955-56 in name of Gram Panchayat--Land in revenue record shown as ‘Gair Mumkin Pahar’ and in possession of Forest of Department--Petitioner could not show that they were in cultivating possession for 12 years prior to 26.1.1950--Concurrent finding by all authorities below that land Shamlat deh and would be in ownership of Gram Panchayat--No interference--|Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 13-A. (Para 3)
--------------
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bharat Singh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. N. Mittal
F. A. O. No. 1631 of 2009 (O&M)
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
v.
Bharat Singh
{Decided on 15/04/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Navin Kapur, Advocate.
(A) Accident Law--Valid Driving Licence--Claimant state that deceased was holding valid driving license which was lost in accident itself--Appellant insurance company did not lead any evidence to contrary nor it summoned driving license from owner-respondent no.3--Cannot be said that deceased was not holding valid driving license--Appellant-insurance Company not absolved of its liability to satisfy the award--|Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 163-A. (Para 4)
(B) Accident Law--Compensation--Owner covered by insurance policy on account of payment of additional premium for the same--Contention that deceased had borrowed scooter from owner insured and was therefore not third party--Not tenable--Consequently, if deceased is deemed to have stepped into shoes of owner or is treated as third party in either event insurer cannot be absolved of its liability to pay compensation amount--|Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 163-A.
(C) Accident Law--Compensation--Limited liability--Insurer raised plea of complete denial of its liability--Did not raise alternative plea of limited liability--Contention that liability of insurer towards owner was limited to extent of Rs.1,00,000/- only not acceptable at appellate stage as no such plea raised before claims Tribunal--|Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 163-A. (Para 6)

--------------

No comments:

Post a Comment