Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Santokh Singh v. Darshan
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2081
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
R.S.A. No. 134 of 2003 & R.S.A.No. 135 of 2003
Santokh Singh & Anr.
v.
Darshan Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 23/07/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.1 and 2: Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure--Injunction--Permanent Injunction--Co-sharer who is in exclusive possession of joint holding is entitled to protect his possession-- Civil Procedure Code, 1908--Order 39 Rule 1& 2. (Para 12)
(B) Civil Procedure--Injunction--Permanent Injunction--In case plaintiffs are successful in proving their possession over suit property suit for permanent injunction is liable to be decreed.--Civil Procedure Code, 1908--Order 39, Rule 1& 2 (Para 12)
(C) Land & Property Law--Joint Property--Right of co-owner--Law summed up--Enumerated (Para 11)
----------------
Cha2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2084
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
C.W.P. No.622 of 2009
Chander Mohan Sahdev
v.
Chandigarh Administration & Ors.
{Decided on 23/07/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. V.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Anuj Balian, Advocate.
Land and Property Law--Resumption of Site--Misuse of Property--Penalty--Rate fixed for charging penalty towards misuse of site building challenged--Penalty can also be imposed for misuse of part of building treating its as misuse of entire building--Site allotted a one plot and building plan was approved as one unit--No interference-- Chandigarh (Sales of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Section 9-A. (Para 6)
--------------
M/s Sadashiv Castings Ltd. v. Ombudsman Electricity Punjab
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2085
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
C.W.P. No.15561 of 2008
M/s Sadashiv Castings Ltd.
v.
Ombudsman Electricity Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 23/07/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anand Chhibber, Advocate,
For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Vikas Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate.
Electricity Law-- Penalty--Violation of peak load hour restriction and weekly off day--Use of electricity during prohibited period (Peak load Hours) and weekly off days admitted--Notice regarding peak load Hours restrictions was within knowledge of petitioner--No explanation for running factory on weekly off days--No explanation furnished for committing violation as alleged--No interference in demands of penalty.--Electricity Act, 2003 (Para 4, 5 & 6)

--------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2087
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Criminal Revision No. 560 of 1996
Balbir Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 31/07/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhoop Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana.
Criminal Law--Affidavit--Contradiction in two affidavits--Any affidavit becomes affidavit when it is sworn before competent authority authorised to administer oath to deponent-- In the absence of similar certification of affidavit Ex. P2 that the same had been sworn by the petitioner before the Oath Commissioner, it cannot be said that affidavit Ex. P2 was, in fact, sworn or affirmed on oath by the petitioner.--Essential ingredient of affidavit missing in case of second affidavit--In view this technical defect, benefit extended to petitioner--Petitioner acquitted of charge against him giving benefit of doubt-- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 340--Penal Code, 1860, Section 193.
--------------