Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 20, 2010

M/s General Electronics and others v. Amrik Singh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.1521 of 2001 (O&M)
M/s General Electronics
v.
Amrik Singh
{Decided on 04/02/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr.Harminderjeet Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. M. L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kabir Sarin
Rent Law--Eviction--Bonafide Requirement--Foundation of laying such a claim is that
a) is required to be in his own occupation;
b) he is not occupying another residential building;
c) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. If onus all these circumstances exist, the onus will be on the tenant to show that the landlord lacks bona fides--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a). (Para 5)
---------------------
Sheo Ram v. Madhu Ram
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
CR No.2351 of 2008 (O&M)
Sheo Ram
v.
Madhu Ram
{Decided on 27/01/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate
(A) Civil Procedure--Amendment of Plaint--If the plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint, the defendant has a corresponding right to file the amended written statement to the amended plaint--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6 Rule 17. (Para 9)
(B) Civil Procedure--Amendment of Plaint--In the written statement filed in pursuance to the amended plaint, the defendant is entitled to take certain pleas which were not taken earlier and there is no such bar against him to take any other additional plea--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6 Rule 17. (Para 9)
--------------------
Fauja Singh v. State of Punjab and others
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No. 3226 of 2009
Fauja Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 02/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate.
Revenue Law--Ownership--Claim for--Contention of petitioners that land owned by him wrongly shown to be in ownership and possession of central government--Petitioner did not disclose when and how he came know about the fact--Petitioners did not gave sufficient proof of allotment in his favour--Moreover, 3 years elapsed after dismissal of application under Section 42--Application not maintained at such belated stage--|East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, Section 42.
-------------------
Balkar Singh & others v. Ashok Kumar
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No.3487 of 2007 (O&M)
Balkar Singh
v.
Ashok Kumar
{Decided on 02/03/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate
(A) Specific Relief--Discretion under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, whether exercised fairly or not, is a question of law--|Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 20. (Para 8)
(B) Specific Relief--Agreement to sell--Son agreed to sell land on behalf of his father--Father died and son became co-sharer, consideration amount was paid--Prayer of appellant confirmed that till land is portioned, he be considered as co-sharer and entitled to share of the vendor who had accepted the sale consideration pursuant to the agreement to sell--Order modified to the extend the appellant shall be entitled to enforce the said agreement to sell qua the share by getting the same partitioned--Appellant also not to claim recovery of any amount already paid to the vendor--|Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Para 9 and 10)