Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Sanjeev Kumar v. Bittu @ Jagroop Singh
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2285
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Civil Revision No. 2836 of 2008
Sanjeev Kumar
v.
Bittu @ Jagroop Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 30/04/2009}
Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate.
Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate.
Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166(2)--Claim petition--Place of filing--The words “resides” cannot be so strictly be construed to mean the residence at the time of accident but claimant to prove his residence at the time of filing the petition. (P.6)
------------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2286
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
RSA No.3800 of 2004
Sukhwant Singh
v.
Divisional Forest Officer & Anr.
{Decided on 02/04/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39, R.1 and 2--Injunction--A trespasser cannot seek injunction against the true owner though he may have a right to protect his possession against the whole except against true owner. (P.26)
------------------
Ranjit Kaur v. M/s M.B. Industries
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
C.R. No.3661 of 2008 (O&M)
Ranjit Kaur
v.
M/s M.B. Industries tho. its regst. partner Sh. Sushil Chhabra
{Decided on 18/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sushil Garg, Advocate and Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate and Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21, R.101 and 103--Eviction--Execution proceedings--Execution process resisted on an objection taken at the instance of a person that he was not impleaded as a party in the proceedings--Held; matter would require an adjudication and the disposal as it was originally done by the executing court. (P.5)
--------------------
Chhellu v. State of Haryana
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
RFA No.651 of 1991
Chhellu & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana, through Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon
{Decided on 29/04/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Mamta Singal Talwar, A.A.G,. Haryana.
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.2(1) and 18--Compensation--Enhancement by Supreme Court -- Civil Court of original jurisdiction as prescribed under S.2 (d) of the Act means ‘the reference Court’ and for that purpose, the claimants cannot take advantage of further enhancement of compensation by the Supreme Court, particularly when they had not filed any application for re-determination of compensation before collector. (P.15)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.28--Re-determination of Compensation--Claimants admittedly have filed an application under Section 28-A (3) of the Act only six days after the order passed by the Collector dismissing the application under Section 28-A (2) of the Act which has now been decided by the reference Court in favour of the claimants, the application under Section 28-A (3) of the Act is maintainable--Claimants are entitled to file an application for redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A on the basis of latest award of the reference Court. (P.16)