Parvinder Kumar @ Bindri v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla
Crl.Misc.No.M-8602 of 2009
Parvinder Kumar @ Bindri
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 05/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab.
Criminal Law--Bail--Regular Bail--Abetment of Suicide--Petitioner’s sister-in-law committed suicide--Her husband and entire family of her in-laws including petitioner and his wife implicated--Petitioner left for Dubai few days after incident--During investigation his wife found innocent--Application for summoning her as an additional accused filed by prosecution dismissed by trial Court--Allegations against petitioner and his wife almost similar--Petitioner did not join investigation and was declared a proclaimed offender--He was arrested on 31.1.2008 and behind bars ever since--Allegations relating to abetment of suicide would determined during trial--Petitioner can be directed to deposit passport during trial Court and file undertaking that he would not travel abroad without prior permission of trial Court--Bail to satisfaction of CJM granted--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439--Penal Code, 1860, Section 306/34. (Para 7)
----------------------
Isham Singh And. Ors. v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Misc. No. M-11324 of 2009
Isham Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 08/05/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajinder Singh Rana, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1-State: Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory bail--Allegations--In execution of civil court decree land of petitioners was attached--Petitioners harvested wheat crop even though it was attached and Tehsildar was appointed as a receiver--Petitioner deposited entire decretal amount alongwith 9% interest in compliance with order of Court--Prearrest bail granted affirmed till filing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Section 379 & 188. (Paras 4 & 5)
-------------------
Budh Ram v. Mam Chand
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1379
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 1534 of 2009 (O&M)
Budh Ram
v.
Mam Chand
{Decided on 05/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Injunction--Mere ownership, if any, could not entitle to seek decree for mandatory injunction from party in possession.
Civil Procedure--Injunction--Mandatory Injunction--Plaintiff/appellant seeking mandatory injunction against defendant/respondent by claiming them to be licencees--However, no evidence was led to prove licence--Evidence showing defendant/respondent to be legal heirs of original owner--Mere ownership, if any, could not entitle to seek decree for mandatory injunction from party in possession--|Civil Procedure Code 1908, Order 39, Rule 1 & 2. (Para 10 & 13)
------------------
M/s Reliance Haryana SEZ Ltd. v. Shiv Kumar And Anr.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1381
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand
Civil Revision No. 840 of 2009
M/s Reliance Haryana SEZ Ltd.
v.
Shiv Kumar And Anr.
{Decided on 08/05/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Salil Sagar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Samrath Sagar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate.
Civil Procedure--Ad-valorem Court fee--Defendant/respondent no.2 purchased share of co-sharer of plaintiff/respondent no.1 and became joint owner--Plaintiff/respondent no.1 noticed that his share too is mutated in favour of defendant/respondent no.2 on basis of sale deed--Plaintiff/respondent no.1 filed suit for invalidation of impugned sale deed on averment that he never executed sale deed and some else impersonated him--Civil Court restrained defendant/respondent no.2 from alienating suit land--However, he violated order and sold suit land in favour of petitioner/ builder--Allowing plea of petitioner-builder to file ad-valorem Court fee would amount to validating violation of stay order--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 11. (Para7)
------------------
Chander Kalan & Anr. v. Roshan Lal
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1382
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Civil Revision No. 569 of 2008
Chander Kalan & Anr.
v.
Roshan Lal
{Decided on 08/05/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate.
(A) Rent Law--Eviction--Bonafide requirement--Number of family members increased due to marriage of landlady and also after selling of earlier house--There are seven members of family--To reject personal necessity being married and need of a separate accommodation only on ground that he has shifted to rented accommodation is totally unfair and unjust--An accommodation of one room and a verandah available with such a huge family cannot be termed as sufficient--Therefore, requirement is Bonafide--|Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13. (Para 7, 9 & 10)
(B) Rent Law--Revision--Concurrent finding of facts--Interference with--Power of High Court is not used in a routine manner--However in cases where conclusion recorded by Courts below are not possible to be accepted on material placed on record, then there is no bar on exercise of such power--|Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 15. (Para 13)
