Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Satish Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1406
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Revision No. 211 of 2002
Satish Kumar
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh
{Decided on 06/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate.
For the Respondent-Union Territory, Chandigarh: Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate.
Food Adulteration--Reduction of sentence--Sample of Tea leaves not found in consonance with specification prescribed--Conviction and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1000/-.--Held; That since petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of 20 years he is entitled to consistent view taken by High Court--Therefore, Sentence of petitioner reduced to already undergone--However sentence of fine enhanced to Rs.10,000/-.-- |Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sections 16(1) (a)(i). (Para 5)
------------------------
Mahender Singh Jandliwale v. Chhaju Ram
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Civil Revision No. 5721 of 2008 (O&M) & Civil Revision No. 6324 of 2008 (O&M)
Mahender Singh Jandliwale
v.
Chhaju Ram & Anr.
{Decided on 05/05/2009}
For the Petitioner in CR No. 5721 of 2008 and
for the respondent in CR No. 6324 of 2008: Mr. S. S. Godara, Advocate.
For the Respondents in CR No. 5721 of 2008 and
for the petitioners in CR No. 6324 of 2008: Mr. B. R. Gupta, Advocate.
Civil Procedure--Impleadment--Amendment of plaint--Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell--Agreement to sell allegedly executed by petitioner vendor in favour of respondent no.1--Vendee--On failure to execute sale deed on or before date fixed suit was filed--Respondent no.2, daughter-in-law of respondent no.1 sought to be impleaded as party claiming that after receipt of notice petitioner-vendor came forward to settle the dispute and in terms thereof at revised rates petitioner-vendee who at his option was entitled to get sale deed executed in favour of his daughter-in-law--Held; That respondent no.2 is stranger to suit initially filed by respondent no.1 vendee against petitioner-vendor on basis of agreement to sell and is not necessary party--Impugned order allowing substitution of respondent no.2 in place of respondent no.1 as plaintiff in suit set aside--Respondent no.1 shall only continue to be plaintiff in the suit--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 1, Rule 10--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17--Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Paras 5, 6 & 7)
CASE CITED:
1. Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, JT 2005(4) SC 565 (Para 4)

--------------------
Badri Parshad v. Ram Niwas
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A.No.1006 of 2009 (O&M)
Badri Parshad
v.
Ram Niwas
{Decided on 05/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate.
Revenue Law--Eviction--Dholidar--Land was being used for religious purpose--Possession of appellant was to run Dharmshala and provide drinking water to general public--Plea of tenancy to justify his possession not proved purpose for which possession was afforded to him not denied--Findings by Courts below that he ceased to perform religious fact functions and therefore is entitled to be evicted from suit land--No inference.
----------------------