Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 20, 2010

nder Walia v. Subhash Chand Joshi
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 867
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
C.M.No.7525-C of 2007 and R.S.A. No. 2700 of 2007 (O&M)
Narender Walia
v.
Subhash Chand Joshi
{Decided on 03/03/2009}
For the Applicants/Appellants: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate.
For the Non-applicant/Respondent No.1: Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate.
Non-applicants/Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: Nemo.
Rules and Orders--Accompanying Appeal--To grant permission to file--Non-applicant filed suit against Municipal Committee for permanent and mandatory injunction--Case of non-applicant that property belonged to his wife upon which she had constructed a school in accordance with the plans sanctioned by Municipal Committee and only dispute was regarding area which was shown in red in site plan which was being used for parking by students--No material shown as to what interest applicants have in property either before filing but or after passing or decrees--Provisions of law on which reliance has been placed are not attracted at all--Moreover, applicants are nephews of person who had long standing enmity with non-applicant--Application misconceived.--|Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Volume 5, Chapter 1, Part C, Rule 2 (Paras 9, 13, 14 & 15)

--------------
Joginder Singh (D.) L.Rs. v. Mohinder Singh (D.) L.Rs.)
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
RSA No.1369 of 1991
Joginder Singh (D.) L.Rs.
v.
Mohinder Singh (D.) L.Rs.)
{Decided on 05/03/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. S.C. Khunger & Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate.
Civil Procedure--Resjudicata--In previous suit defendant/appellant challenged will in favour plaintiff/respondents to be forged document--However, he did not succeed and suit was ordered to be dismissed--Subsequent suit filed by plaintiffs/respondent for declaration and possession--Defendant/appellant not debarred from raising plea of family settlement in defence which was not subject matter of consideration in previous litigation--Findings of lower Appellants Court that Ex.D5 was not memo of family settlement but document creating title required registration already set aside by High Court and upheld by Supreme Court--Held; that defendant/appellant became owner during life time of testator of Will--Therefore, even if Will is upheld testator could not have bequeathed property more than what was held by him--Finding of Appellate Court that defence of defendant/appellant not hit by Order 2 Rule 2 and that document Ex.D5 required registration cannot be sustained-- Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 11, Order 2, Rule 2 (Para 44 to 52)
--------------
Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 878 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly
Criminal Appeal No. 446 Of 2009
Rakesh Kumar
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 06/03/2009}
Criminal Law--Dowry Death--Dying Declaration--Cruelty to wife--Bride burning-- Deceased received severe burns in an accident--Police tried to record statement but she was not totally fit--Certain letters purported to be written by deceased brought on record--Trial Court held appellants guilty--High Court while directing acquittal of co-accused held only appellant guilty--Shoddy investigation cannot be a foundation for the accused persons to take advantage of shoddiness--But there was no material brought on record by the prosecution to establish the accusations--There was a dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh who was present at PGI hospital--The authenticity of the dying declaration has not been questioned--It is the stand of the prosecution that police officer should have recorded it--But that cannot be a ground to discard the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate--Additionally, the prosecution laid great emphasis on the letters purported to have been written by the deceased to her relatives--Here again, handwriting expert's report clearly shows that the letters were not in the handwriting of the deceased--No evidence brought on record by the prosecution to establish the accusations--That being so, the appeal deserves to be allowed--|Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1)--Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B and 498-A. (Para 5 and 6)
-----------------------
Hari Chand v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
C.W.P. No. 17463 of 2007
Hari Chand
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 22/12/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashu M. Punchhi, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate and Mr. Amit Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land--State would not be entitled to issue licence to land owners or a private colonizer, after issuance of notification under Section 4
(A) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of land--After notification under Section 4, no transfer of land is permissible--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4. (Para 9)
(B) Land and Property Law--Release of land after acquisition--Policy of the State government to grant licence in favour of a colonizer who had no interest in the land before issuance of notification under Section 4 and who has acquired interest either by entering into a collaboration Agreement or by acquiring ownership rights after notification under Section 4 of the Act, cannot be accepted--State would not be entitled to issue licence to land owners or a private colonizer, after issuance of notification under Section 4--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4. (Para 13)
--------------