Wednesday, March 31, 2010

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 S.100--Second appeal--Finding of facts--Interference--Findings recorded by the learned trial court which have been affirmed by the learned lower appellate court cannot be said to be one which can be said to be perverse or not capable of being arrived at on appreciation of evidence which may call for interference by this court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.; Chhelu Ram v. Dan Singh,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 521
O.5 R.20-A--Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.106--Notice--Service of--Presumption--Termination of tenancy--When letter is received back with report ‘Not Present’, no presumption of service can be drawn unless something more is proved by leading cogent evidence that it was in fact refusal--No such evidence led by plaintiff-appellant--Tenancy was not held to be terminated by valid notice.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
O.5 R.20-A--Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.106--Notice--Service of--Presumption--Termination of tenancy--Notice returned with remarks ‘Not Present’--Plaintiff gave a suggestion that it was refused on date of dispatch itself--But no proof of refusal given nor any evidence led to prove this suggestion--Contention that service by certificate of posting could be presumed cannot be sustained when notice issued did not carry any date showing termination of tenancy.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
O.5 R.20-A--Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.106--Notice--Service of—Presumption--Termination of tenancy--Presumption of service, of a letter addressed at a correct address can be drawn in case it is not received back served or otherwise--Once a letter sent is received back with the remarks by the Postal Authorities, then it has to be decided on facts of each case whether service can be presumed or not.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
O.5 R.20-A--Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.106--Notice--Service of--Presumption--Termination of tenancy--In case it is proved, that there is no role of the addressee in sending back the letter and the letter, is received back by the sender with the remarks ‘Not Present’ no presumption can be drawn of addressee’s service, as ‘the return’ itself shows that letter was actually not served--Learned trial court was not correct in recording that under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the notice is merely to be dispatched.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
O.5 R.20-A--Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.106--Notice--Mode of Service--Termination of tenancy--Section 106 gives liberty to serve the notice, by post or tender or deliver it to the party or one of his family members or servant at his residence, and in case such tender and delivery is not practicable affix it at the conspicuous place of the property.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
O.6, R.17--Amendment of Written Statement--Counter claim--Application moved to amend written statement to incorporate relief of counter claim allowed--Amendment cannot be rejected merely on ground that plea raised in counter claim is contradictory to plea raised in written statement.; Raghubir Singh & Ors. v. Tajinder Pal Singh & Ors.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 485

ARMS ACT, 1959

ARMS ACT, 1959 S.25 and 27--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 341, 148 and 149--Bail--Murder--Attempt to murder--Unlawful assembly--Petitioner no.1 and 2 stopped tractor of complainant and attacked them with their gandasis--Their role similar to that of accused ‘K’ who attacked tractor with his dang granted bail--Beside, accused ‘G’ who was holding double barren gun and stated to have fired also granted bail as in supplementary inquiry and statement no specific role had been attributed to him--Petitioners who alleged to got money are in custody since December, 2008-Out of 29 witnesses citied by prosecution only three have been examined--Trial in the case likely to take time--Petitioner admitted to bail.; Sukhjinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 510
Muni Lal v. Udai Chand
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1454
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
C.R. No. 5934 of 2007
Muni Lal
v.
Udai Chand
{Decided on 02/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. L.N. Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. H.R. Nohria, Advocate.
Rent Law--Eviction--Non payment of rent--Deposit of arrear of rent--Plea of tenancy on the basis of rent note--Found to be doubt full--Oral evidence to prove the same--Cannot be looked into--Arrear cannot be ordered to be deposited--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act Section 13.

----------------------
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1435
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-579 of 2005 (O&M)
Balbir Singh
v.
Kaushalya Devi
{Decided on 19/05/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Amarjit Khurana, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Criminal Law--Quashing of complaint--Abetment of Suicide--General allegations against petitioners--Infact demand of cash and scooter made by husband of respondent--Although allegation was that demand of scooter was made at instance of wife of elder brother of husband petitioner no.2 but same would be used by her husband--All petitioners living separately since their marriage--Petitioner have been falsely roped in the case merely because of their relationship with husband of respondent--Complaint and summoning order and consequential proceeding arising there form quashed qua petitioners--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B. (Paras 6 & 7)
--------------------
Bachan Singh v. Gursaran Singh & Ors.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1439
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No.1514 of 2009 (O&M)
Bachan Singh (now deceased) thro. Lrs.
v.
Gursaran Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 19/05/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to Sell--Merely because agreement to sell does not describe land property it would not render it to be a suspicious document if other attending circumstance conclusively point to execution of the same.
(A) Specific Relief--Agreement to sell--Suit for specific performance--Agreement to sell validly executed--Passing of part of sale consideration also proved--Purchaser always ready and willing to perform his part of contract--Seller or his legal heir failed to substantiate plea of fraud--Merely because agreement to sell does not describe land property it would not render it to be a suspicious document if other attending circumstance conclusively point to execution of the same and in such eventuality, all the factors have to be considered in their totality to conclude that agreement was valid document or not--Likewise, merely because the deed writer was not examined, it would not rob agreement its credibility it there are attending circumstances to show its execution. (Para 19, 21, 23 & 24)
(B) Specific Relief--Agreement to sell--In a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell following essential ingredient have to be proved are-
1. that the agreement to sell was validly executed;
2. that there was valid consideration; and
3. that there was willingness and readiness on the part of the vendee to perform his part of agreement--|Specific Relief Act, 1963. (Para 14)

--------------------
Chander Shekhar v. Bishan Devi through LRs
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1442
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.840 of 2003 (O&M)
Chander Shekhar
v.
Bishan Devi through LRs
{Decided on 02/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate and Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate and Mr. M.S. Kang, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate.
Rent Law--Eviction--Bonafide requirement of landlord--Relevant consideration –The need as it exist prior to the filing of petition is relevant--Must also prove to subsist on the day of final orders--Subsequent addition of requirement--Competency of appeal, court to look into--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Section 13.
---------------------
Harnek Singh v. Paramjit Singh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Civil Revision No. 1029 of 2008 (O&M)
Harnek Singh
v.
Paramjit Singh
{Decided on 24/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate.
(A) Rent Law--Leave to defend-- Application for--Filing of--To be filed within fifteen days from the date of service--Service affected by munadi--Date of munadi is the date for starting of limitation--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
(B) Rent Law--Leave to defend-- Application for--Filing of--Limitation--Condonation of delay--Not competency of court--Provisions of limitation act not applicable--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

------------------
Dwarka Dass v. Punjab Handloom Weavers Co-op,….
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1447
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
CR No.1263 of 1989
Dwarka Dass
v.
Punjab Handloom Weavers Co-op, Society Ltd. & Anr.
{Decided on 27/08/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kabir Sarin, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate.
Rent Law--Subletting--Property let out to the society--Society changing its name in accordance with rules--No case of amalgamation--No change in the membership of the society--Rights of founder members not affected--Case of sub-letting not made out--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13.
----------------
Sunil Dhawan v. Satwant Kaur & Ors.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.4113 of 2004 (O&M)
Sunil Dhawan
v.
Satwant Kaur & Ors.
{Decided on 03/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Reshav Kataria, Advocate.
For the Respondents; Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate.
Rent Law--Eviction--Bonafide requirement of body of landlords--Tenant in possession of more accommodation than the requirement of individual landlord--The integrity of tenancy--Not to be decimated--Only if specific portion is decided that can be ordered to be vacated.
--------------------
Gulshan Sehgal v. Asooba Singh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1451
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.4613 of 2006 (O&M)
Gulshan Sehgal
v.
Asooba Singh
{Decided on 03/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate.

Rent Law--Landlord and tenant--Denial of relationship--Competency of rent controller to decide question of title--Not competent in routine--Exceptional case of tenancy having been created after passing of decree by civil court--Can be carved out as an exceptional case--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act Section 13.
----------------
Mrs. Gurtej Sidhu v. A.S. Rattan
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Kannan
C.R. No.4738 of 2004 (O&M) & C.R. No.240 of 2005 (O&M)
Mrs. Gurtej Sidhu
v.
A.S. Rattan
{Decided on 12/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate.
For the Petitioner in C.R. No.240 of 2005: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate
For the Respondent in C.R. No.240 of 2005: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate.
Rent Law--Eviction--Bonafide requirement--Plea of having no accommodation and had not vacated any accommodation without reasonable and probable cause--Mandatory--Sufficiency of accommodation--To be adjudged with the view point of landlord and not the tenant--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act Section 13.
------------------
Bhagwan Dass v. Prem Chand
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Civil Revision No.349 of 2001
Bhagwan Dass
v.
Prem Chand
{Decided on 20/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, Advocate.
Rent Law--Eviction--Unsafe and unfit for human habitation--Demises premises comprised only of one room and verandah--One wall and roof of single room having collapsed demised premises in damaged unsafe and unfit for human habitation--Demised premises has not scope for tenant to shift into another portion of building to permit repair of remaining part of building--Thus, demised premises cannot be repaired while tenant remains in occupation--Order of ejectment upheld--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13. (Paras 8, 9 & 10)
--------------------
Gurpreet Singh v. The Punjab State Co-operative…
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Criminal Revision No.2137 of 2006
Gurpreet Singh
v.
Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd.
{Decided on 15/05/2009}
Present: Mr. S.S.Bhinder, Advocate.
Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
Dishonour of Cheque--Conviction--Cheque dishonoured with remarks Referred to drawer which means insufficient funds--Computer operator of bank deposed that cheque was not issued by their branch with a view to help petitioner--Documentary evidence on record belies his statement to this effect--Court below rightly convicted and sentence petitioner under Section 138--|Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138.
--------------------
Gram Panchayat, Bidhal v. Satbir & Ors.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 2734 of 2006 (O&M)
Gram Panchayat, Bidhal
v.
Satbir & Ors.
{Decided on 15/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate.
Civil Procedure--Injunction--Counter claim--For purpose of injunction Court was only to see possession of parties--Once plaintiff-respondent had taken a stand that he had no intention to interfere with possession of Gram Panchayat over khasra No.130 and was only to protect his possession and ownership over khasra no.189--Trial Court justified in accepting suit of plaintiff and also counter claim of Gram Panchayat restraining plaintiff from interfering in possession of Gram Panchayat over khasra no. 130--In suit for injunction question of title not be determined--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1 & 2. (Para 12)
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1426
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
CWP No.7372 of 2007 (O&M)
Gram Panchayat Umarpura, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur
v.
Director Rural Development & Panchayat Department, Punjab & Ors
{Decided on 15/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G.Punjab,
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate.
Revenue Law--Village Common Land--Ejectment--Title--Once it is held that it is mandatory to decide application under Section 11 of Act like a civil suit, question whether it has led to any prejudice or not is not to be seen--Application filed under Section 11 could not have been disposed of summarily--Impugned order set-aside--Parties to appear before collector who shall follow procedure as prescribed under law--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 11. (Paras 5 & 6)
--------------------
Jaswant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1427
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-11328 of 2009
Jaswant Singh & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 07/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr.P.K.Kataria, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Cheating--Forgery--Agreement To Sell--Petitioner No.1 executed agreement to sell in favour of--Complainant and received earnest money--However instead of getting sale deed executed in favour of complainant, petitioner no.1 sold property in question to some other persons--Custodial interrogation of petitioner no.1 necessary--Petition seeking anticipatory bail qua him dismissed--Whereas petitioner no.2 is attesting witness of sale deed executed in favour of other persons--His case is on different footing--Petition qua petitioner no.2 for anticipatory bail liable to be allowed--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B. (Para 5,6 & 7)
------------------
Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc M-3680 of 2009
Satish Kumar
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.
{Decided on 18/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. AS Ghangas, DAG Haryana.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate.
Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Theft of Electricity--Compounding of offence--In notice for compounding of offence detail amount of compounding mentioned Rs.14,40,000/- said amount has been deposited by petitioner--Custody of petitioner not required for investigation--Open to complainant to further recoveries due, it any--Interim bail granted to petitioner made absolute--He shall join investigation and abide by conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 320 and 438--Penal Code, 1860, Section 379--Electricity Act, 2003, Sections 135 & 152.
(Para 7 & 8)
------------------
Charanjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Misc. No. 12253-M of 2009
Charanjit Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 12/05/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Patter, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
(A) Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory bail--Impersonation--Petitioners purchased land for sale consideration of 62,20,000/- later it was found that owner of Land lady was impersonated and sale deed executed in favour of petitioners was fraudulent document--Entire sale consideration was paid in cash--Sufficient evidence that petitioners taking into consideration that land is lying vacant had committed fraud by bringing to a lady and projecting her as owner--Custodial interrogation of petitioner required for advancement of investigation--Hence prayer for pre-arrest bail declined--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 419, 420 and 205. (Para 5)
(B) Criminal Law--Bail--Grant--Impersonation--Purchase of land--Later it was found that land lady was impersonated and sale deed executed was fraudulent document--Petitioner, who identified lady who had impersonated landlady is in custody since 15.1.2009--It is a case of magisterial trial--Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted--18 witnesses cited by prosecution--Trial will take long time to conclude--Further detention of co-petitioner not warranted especially when challan is filed against petitioner only--Other co-accused are to be arrested and supplementary challan is to be filed--Petitioner ordered to be released on bail to satisfaction of C.J.M.--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 419, 420 and 205. (Para 6)
------------------
Randip Singh v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1422
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Criminal Revision No.1854 of 2002 (O&M)
Randip Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 05/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Parduman Yadav, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Criminal Law--Rash and Negligent driving--Acquittal--Prosecution case doubtful as presence of witnesses at the spot was suspicious--Since witnesses were strangers to petitioner, it is a hit and run case, none of witnesses has stated that they had identified petitioner at spot, therefore, in the absence of test identification parade in such case, identification of petitioner for the first time in Court is insignificant--Prime element of rashness or negligence which the sine quo for holding culpability of accused has not been proved at all most material witness has been withheld--Conviction and sentence set aside--Accused acquitted--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A. (Para 9)
--------------------------
Rishal & Anr. v. Biro & Ors.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A.No.3659 of 2008
Rishal & Anr.
v.
Biro & Ors.
{Decided on 05/05/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate.
Land and Property Law--Mortgage--Usufructuary Mortgage--Once a mortgage always a mortgage--No time limit prescribed for redeeming an usufructuary mortgage--Mortgage cannot become owner of land as mortgagor failed to redeem it for more than 100 years--Sale deed would have no bearing on status or mortgagor and mortgagee--|Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
------------------
Ramesh Chand v. Kishan Chand
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 1628 of 2009 (O&M)
Ramesh Chand
v.
Kishan Chand
{Decided on 07/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate.
(A) Revenue Law--Consent Decree--Revenue Entries--Civil Court decree prevails over revenue entries--Property in dispute given to plaintiff/respondent and he was put in possession under civil Court decree--Revenue entries, in absence of proof of handing back of possession by plaintiff/respondent in favour of defendant/appellant could not be relied upon in preference to civil Court decree. (Para 10)
(B) Revenue Law--Consent decree--Revenue Entries--Limitation--Land in disputes though given to plaintiff/respondent in consent decree was entered in name of defendant/appellant--Suit for declaration that plaintiff/respondent was owner in possession of land in dispute filed within three years of knowledge--Not barred by limitation. (Para 8)
--------------------
Major Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Pb., Chd.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1417
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
C.W.P. No.18770 of 2008
Major Singh
v.
Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Pb., Chandigarh & Ors.
{Decided on 05/05/2009}
For the Petitioner (In C.W.P. No.18770 of 2008): Mr. G. S. Nagra, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (In C.W.P. No.20225 of 2008): Mr. B. S. Bali, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Lambardar--Appointment of--Matric is not better qualification than 10+2 when merits are considered--Fact that petitioner was Sarbrah lambardar could not be ignored being very relevant factor to be considered
Revenue Law--Lambardar-- Appointment of--Comparative merit--Petitioner, 47 years old having educational qualification as 10+2--He owned 12 kanals of land--He remained sarbrah Lambardar for 10 years--Respondent no.4 is 60 years old and is matriculate--He retired as senior Assistant from Roadways and has built house in one kanal area--His father owned 5 acres of land--A younger person can perform his duties better compared to person of advanced age--Matric is not better qualification than 10+2 when merits are considered--Fact that petitioner was Sarbrah lambardar could not be ignored being very relevant factor to be considered--Involvement of respondent no.4 in FIR in which he was subsequently acquitted may not be disqualification but is a factor which was to be taken in consideration while considering relative merits of candidates--Appointment of petitioner as lambardar done by collector upheld--Order of Commissioner and Financial Commissioner set aside. (Paras 7 & 9)
----------------------
Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Misc. No. 11613-M of 2009
Daljit Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 08/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Criminal Law--Anticipatory Bail--Recovery of 7 kg. of poppy husk from pillion rider--Petition was driving the scooter could not be arrested as he allegedly filed away from spot--Petitioner has joined investigation--His custodial interrogation is not required--No other case pending against him--Interim pre-arrest bail granted to petitioner affirmed till filling of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.--Petitioner shall furnish regular bail-bonds to satisfaction of Court on submission of report--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 15. (Paras 3 & 4)
--------------------
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.
----------------------
Shangara Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-28803 of 2008
Shangara Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 11/05/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepinder Brar, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Matrimonial dispute between husband and wife taken place in USA--Petitioners i.e. mothers-in-law, father-in-law and brothers-in-law residing in India--Marriage dissolved in USA by mutual consent during pendency of petition--Granted made absolute.
Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Cruelty to Wife--Domestic Violence--Matrimonial dispute between husband and wife taken place in USA--Petitioners i.e. mothers-in-law, father-in-law and brothers-in-law residing in India--Marriage dissolved in USA by mutual consent during pendency of petition--All claim between parties are settled--Dispute that survives is regarding gold ornaments--Petitioner have joined investigation and their custody is not required for purpose of investigation--Interim bail granted made absolute--Complainant however would be at liberty to claim their articles as given without prejudice to their rights to claim--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 406 and 498-A--Domestic Violence Act., Section 5/31. (Paras 3, 4, 6 & 7)
--------------------
Prem Chand Gupta v. Nirmal Gupta
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D.Anand
F.A.O. No. 57-M of 2001
Prem Chand Gupta
v.
Nirmal Gupta
{Decided on 07/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. V.M. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Matrimonial Law--Restitution of conjugal rights--Husband wants restitution only on condition that wife would sell her house in Bathinda and would come over to matrimonial home at Patiala just in order to enable him to raise housing loan--Both spouse in employment of bank--Parties have grown up children--Marriage of parties was solemised on 5.3.1988 and are living separately since 30.8.1994--Wife proved reasons for want of trust in husband--Wife also able to prove that an attempt to do away with her was made by brother of husband by throwing her off a speeding scooter which he himself was driving and instead of getting her medical help opted to fled the spot--Wife had reasonable excuse to refrain from joining conjugal company of husband--Husband not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights--Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 9. (Paras 15, 16 & 17)

--------------------
Sanoj Kumar & Anr. v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia.
Criminal Misc. No. M-11106 of 2009
Sanoj Kumar & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 11/05/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Bedi, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Contraband--Bail--Grant of--Recovery of 52 kg. of poppy husk--Bail granted to co-accused--No other case under Act registered against petitioners--Petitioner entitled to grant of regular bail for reasons stated in order passed in case of co-accused--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439--Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 15/61. (Para 2, 3 & 4)

------------------
Uggar Sain v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Misc. No. M-11318 of 2009
Uggar Sain
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 08/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Attempt to Murder--Co-accused granted anticipatory bail--Case of petitioner is similar to co-accused--Petitioner granted same benefit--Therefore, interim bail granted to petitioner made absolute till submission of report under 173 Cr.P.C. subject to joining the investigation--Thereafter application of petitioner for regular bail shall be decided by trial Court on merits of case--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Section 307, 436, 427, 353, 352, 186, 148 and 149. (Para 4 & 5)
----------------
Rakam Singh v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1403
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Misc. No. 10911-M of 2009
Rakam Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 08/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagdeep S. Virk, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
For the Complainant: Mr. Jayoti Parshad Sharma, Advocate.
Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory bail--Officiating sarpach signed Annexure P-1 in good faith but no record was received--Custodial interrogation of petitioner not required as petitioner had discharged onus handing over of record by proving execution of Annexure P-1 by officiating Sarpach--Pre-arrest bail granted to petitioner affirmed till filing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Section 406 and 166 (Para 3 & 4)

--------------------
Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1404
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajai Lamba
Civil Writ Petition No.13820 of 2006
Vijay Kumar
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 05/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Mr. Anil Sharma, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. I.S. Ratta, Advocate.
Municipal Law--Annual rateable value--Assessment of--Annual rateable value proposed on behalf of corporation vide show cause notice as Rs.2,70,000/-.--Increased by joint commissioner without assigning any reasons--Objections raised on behalf of petitioner for assessing rateable value below Rs.2,70,000/- not considered--Order passed by appellate authority also non-speaking--Held; that order adversely affects rights of petitioner--It is imperative for authorities to assign reasons--Impugned orders quashed--Matter remitted of observations made and in view of provisions of Section 93 of the act--|Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, Section 93 & 163.
(Para 11,13,14 & 16)
--------------------
Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. N. Mittal
R. F. A. No. 735 of 1994
Dinesh Kumar
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.
{Decided on 08/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana.
Land and Property Law--Acquisition of Land--Market value--Sale instance--Market value as per sale instances produced by landowner taken to be Rs.60/- per sq. yard--Market value of acquired agricultural land cannot be determined to be same as market value of small residential plots--Acquired land situated within municipal limit and near developed area--Sale instances of 1-½ year prior of acquisition--Reduction of market value to half not justified--Held, market value assessed at Rs. 45/- with all statutory benefits in accordance with Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4 & 6.
Ritesh Gupta v. State of Punjab & Anr.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1388
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Crl. Rev. No. 929 of 2009 (O&M)
Ritesh Gupta
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 06/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Rajiv Vij, Advocate.
Dishonour of Cheque--Conviction--Compounding of offence--Conviction and sentence by Courts below--At revisional stage amount paid by two demand drafts--Parties allowed to compound the offence in view judgment of apex Court in G. Sivarajan’s case--Petitioner acquitted of offence for which he was convicted and sentenced--|Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 138 and 147.
CASES CITED:
1. G. Sivarajan v. Little Flower Kuries and Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. 2005 (2) DCR 408 (Para 3)
2. Rameshbhai Somabhai Patel v. Dineshbhai Achalanand Rathi, 2005 Crl. L.J. 431 (Para 3)
3. O.P. Dholakia v. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 SCC 762 (Para 5)
------------------
Romesh Sharma v. Prem Kumar Sharma
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand
F.A.O. No. 145-M of 2001
Romesh Sharma
v.
Prem Kumar Sharma
{Decided on 05/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
(A) Matrimonial Law--Divorce--Desertion--Parties living separately since September 1994--Averment by wife that she was turned out of matrimonial house after having been belaboured by husband and his family member not reliable--She failed to prove that her husband and his family member used to deprive of her monthly wages--Wife not willing to resume cohabitation--Held; That wife deserted husband for continuous period of not less than two years--|Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(i). (Para 18 & 19)
(B) Matrimonial Law--Divorce--Cruelty--No convincing evidence to corroborate averment by husband that wife wanted him to separate from his family--Husband failed to prove that wife treated him with cruelty--|Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1). (Para 12 & 13)
------------------
Dheeraj Setia v. CBI
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc M-11342 of 2009
Dheeraj Setia
v.
CBI
{Decided on 11/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. APS Deol, Advocate, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Devinderbir Singh, Advocate.
For CBI: Mr Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate.
Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory bail--Abetment of Suicide--Allegations against petitioner who was working as DSP that he did not conduct a fair enquiry and delayed the enquiry--Besides he got FIR registered under wrong provisions of law so as to give benefit to accused--Victim complained of rape being committed on here by police officials--Petitioner did not get victim subjected to medical examination--Petitioner recommended registration of case under Section 376-B/34 IPC--Question whether there is mensrea in the action of the petitioner in recommending the registration of FIR for the offence under Section 376, IPC would have to be established and proved during trial and the matter cannot be tested by a pre-trial and neither can it be pre-judged on the basis of material as available on record--Therefore, it cannot be conclusive said at this stage that he deliberately conducted investigation is complete and chargesheet is filed--In circumstances, petitioner is granted interim bail till such time his application for regular bail it considered by concerned Court--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 438--Penal Code, 1860, Section 306, 506 & 120-B.(Para 9 & 10)

--------------
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)
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 154
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
CWP No. 15288 of 2007
S.P. Arora, State Public Information Officer-cum-Estate Officer, HUDA
v.
State Information Commission, Haryana
{Decided on 17/10/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Sunil Nehra, AAG, Haryana.
For the Respondent No.3: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Right to Information--Harassment--Penalty--Penalty can be imposed only if there is no reasonable cause for not furnishing information within 30 days--Right to seek information not to be extended to extent that even if file is not available for good reasons still steps are required to be taken by office to procure the file to supply information.
(A) Right to Information--Harassment--Penalty--Information sought in respect of steps taken for transfer of plot on 29.1.2007 when file was lying with bank in relation to project of computerization of official record--Information supplied on 10.4.2007 after files finally returned on 30.3.2007--Applicant filed appeal before Chief Administrator, appellate authority on 15.3.2007 i.e. within a period of six weeks after filing application for requisite information--Also proper--Held; That one Appellate Authority recorded satisfaction of applicant in respect of supply of information, it was not open to applicant to continue with appeal pending before State Information Commission--Instead of refusing to entertain appeal under Section 19 on ground of satisfaction State Information imposing penalty on petitioner--Not justified--Order imposing penalty not sustainable--|Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 19 & 20. (Paras 9, 10 & 11)
(B) Right to Information--Harassment--Penalty--Penalty can be imposed only if there is no reasonable cause for not furnishing information within 30 days--Right to seek information not to be extended to extent that even if file is not available for good reasons still steps are required to be taken by office to procure the file to supply information--|Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 19. (Para 8)
--------------
Dalip Singh v. Director Rural Develp. & Pancht. Punjab
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 157
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar
The Hon’ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Civil Writ Petition No.10003 of 2005
Dalip Singh
v.
Director Rural Development & Panchayats Punjab
{Decided on 12/11/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S S Brar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab.
For the Respondent No. 2: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Question of title--Not to be decided in summary proceedings.
Revenue Law--Village Common Land--Question of title--Collector holding summary proceedings for disposing suit under Section 11--Not proper--Held; That while deciding question of title in suit filed under Section 11 it was incumbent for the Collector, to frame issues, allow the parties to lead evidence in respect of the respective issues, and record specific finding on each of the issue--Suit remanded back to collector for fresh decision--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 11.
--------------
Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri
Criminal Revision No.1754 of 2008
Surinder Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 11/12/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepinder Singh Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Bhutani, AASG Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
Rash and negligent driving--Prosecution not required to prove speed of vehicle but factum of rash negligent driving.
(A) Criminal Law--Rash and Negligent driving--Reduction in sentence--Accident accured when tractor driving at high speed in negligent manner hit the deceased and he succumbed to injuries at spot--Contention that in village path tractor cannot ply at high speed does not carry any weight--Prosecution not required to prove speed of vehicle but factum of rash and negligent driving--Eye witnesses supported case of prosecution on all material particulars--Concurrent finding of both Courts below regarding guilt of accused--Medical evidence corroborates version given by eye witness--Accused already undergone incarceration for a period of 3 months and 9 days and submitted compensation of Rs.65,000/- to legal heirs of deceased--Original sentence awarded was 2 year by first appellate Court--Accused taken life of minor boy--Courts have also to keep in mind plight of victim at time of awarding sentence--In facts and circumstance end of justice would be met in case sentence is reduced to nine months--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 279 and 304-A. (Paras 18, 21 & 22)
(B) Criminal Law--Rash and negligent driving--Prosecution not required to prove speed of vehicle but factum of rash negligent driving--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 279.

--------------------------
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
CR No.1594 of 1991
Mannu (minor)
v.
Pritam Singh
{Decided on 16/12/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Auction sale--Setting aside of--Objection by legal heirs rejected on ground that they became owner of property on date of passing of decree whereas property was sold prior to that date--Not proper as inheritance was never in abeyance--Objections to be heard.
Civil Procedure--Execution--Auction sale--Setting aside of--Sale of Cold Store in auction--Objections filed by petitioners, legal heirs of proprietor of cold store regarding validity of sale--Rejected on ground that petitioner became owners of 2/3 share in property on date of passing of decree whereas property was sold prior to that date--Held; Not justified as entitlement to inherent 2/3 share of petitioners would relate back to death of original owner as succession never remain in abeyance--Moreover, cold store which was propreitory concern could not be maintained through its manager--Case remanded to consider objections filed by petitioner taking them to be owner of property on date of death of proprietor of cold store--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 21, Rules 54, 66 and 90. (Para 9, 10, 21, 22 & 25)

------------------
v. State of Punjab
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 134 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam
Civil Appeal No. 6198 of 2008 with Civil Appeal Nos. 6200-6201 of 2008
Nirmal Singh Kahlon
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 22/10/2008}
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. P.P. Malhotra, A.S.G., Mr. P.P. Rao, Mr. L.N. Rao, Sr. Advocates, Mr. A.K. Pandey, Mr. Aseem Malhotra, Ms. Sunita R. Singh, Ms. Shefali Jain, Mr. Purushottam S.T., Ms. Sahar Bakht, Utsav, Mr. Febin A.K., Mr. Rajesh Prasad Singh, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Satyakam, Mr. B.K. Prasad, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Ajay Pal, Mr. Nikhil Jain and Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
FIR--Recruitment scam by Minister surfaced by police--FIR lodged and charge sheet filed--Involvement of large number of persons--CBI ordered to conduct investigation--CBI lodged second FIR on finding larger scam--Second FIR not illegal.
(A) Criminal Law--FIR--Lodging of Second FIR--Whether illegal--FIR against one former Minister regarding illegal appointments made by him after accepting bribe--Police conducted investigation and filed chargesheet--State Govt. handed over the investigation to CBI--CBI found larger scam in recruitments made by Minister--Second FIR lodged by CBI--Held; offence did not remain the same offence--Second FIR not illegal--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154-157 and 173--Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Section 6. (Para 58-62)
(B) Criminal Law--Investigation--Further investigation to CBI--Police investigated offence and submitted chargesheet--More persons involved ; large conspiracy brought to surface--State requested CBI to conduct further investigation--State Govt. has absolute power over investigation and it can order further investigation by CBI--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 173(8)--Police Act, 1861, Section 3--|Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1996, Sections 6 and 36. (Para 61)
(C) Criminal Law--Investigation--Corruption case against Minister--Scam found serious and involvement of more persons--High Court asked State Govt. to refer investigation to CBI--Order of High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution in public interest held to be valid--|Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154-157--Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946, Section 6. (Para 58-63)
(D) Criminal Law--Investigation by CBI--CBI Manual framed by Union of India give power to Supreme Court and High Court to direct investigation by CBI--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 2(h) and 154-157--Delhi Special Public Establishment Act, 1946, Section 6. (Para 57 and 62)
(E) Criminal Law--Investigation--Fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of fundamental right of an accused--Accused and victim are equally entitled to same--|Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14, 20 and 21. (Para 27)
(F) Criminal Law--Public Interest Litigation--Private Interest Litigation--High Court can initiate a suo motu public interest litigation--In public interest litigation, court need not strictly follow the ordinary procedure--|Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 and 227. (Para 32)
--------------------
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Garewal
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan
Crl. Appeal No. 132 DB of 2007
Dalip Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 19/12/2008}
For the Appellant: Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. V.K. Jindal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. P.S. Sullar, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
Bail--Grant of--If a court is satisfied that the accused will resist tampering with evidence or try to abscond, the court should not hesitate from granting bail. Heavy amount of bond can be imposed with a local surety. The accused can be required to submit himself to police surveillance or electronic surveillance to keep a tag on him.
Suspension of sentence pending appeal--Division Bench judgments in the case of Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, Daler Singh v. State of Punjab, requires re-consideration--Referred to Full Bench.
(A) Criminal Law--Bail--FIR under Section 302 IPC--Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. entitles an accused to be released on bail if trial before Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days from the first date of recording of evidence--An accused can also be released on bail after 60/90 days where investigation has not been concluded as provided in proviso 2 of Section 167 of Cr.P.C.--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 437(6). (Para 6)
(B) Criminal Law--Bail--Grant of--If a court is satisfied that the accused will resist tampering with evidence or try to abscond, the court should not hesitate from granting bail. Heavy amount of bond can be imposed with a local surety. The accused can be required to submit himself to police surveillance or electronic surveillance to keep a tag on him--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439. (Para 11)
(C) Criminal Law--Detention during trial destroys the man, bail saves him from ill affects of detention and yet makes him available to receive sentence, if he is convicted--Convicts get paid some daily wage--Undertrials get nothing, they lose their jobs, their families are deprived of income, their children are unable to pursue studies--Therefore, bail ought to be considered by the trial court itself after 180 days from the date of commencement of the prosecution evidence--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439.(Paras 11, 12 & 13)
(D) Criminal Law--Suspension of sentence pending appeal--FIR under Section 302 IPC--Period of detention undergone by the accused is set off against the sentence of imprisonment--Undertrial period should be added to the post conviction period and an appellant who has completed 5 years in all should be entitled to suspension of sentence automatically--When the undertrial period is also counted towards sentence then it should not make any difference if the appellant has or has not done three years after conviction--In view of these aspect Division Bench judgments in the case of Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, 1999 (4) RCR (Crl.) 600 and Daler Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 390 requires re-consideration--Referred to Full Bench--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 389 & 428. (Paras 16, 17)
-----------------------
Jarnail Singh v. Gram Panchayat, Mahan Singh Wala
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar
The Hon’ble Ms.Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
CWP No. 4619 of 2005
Jarnail Singh
v.
Gram Panchayat, Mahan Singh Wala
{Decided on 11/12/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr.Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: Mr.P.C.Goel, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
IMPORTANT POINT
Common Land--Procedings under Section 7 would remain in abeyance if question of title is raised during pendency of procedings.
(A) Revenue Law--Ejectment--Question of title--If a question relating to the issue of title is raised during the pendency of the proceedings under section 7 of the Village Common Lands Act, then proceedings under section 7, shall remain in abeyance to await the finalisation of the proceedings under section 11 of the Village Common Lands Act, and would reinitiate/ re-commence after the decision is rendered under section 11--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Sections 7 & 11. (Para 3)
(B) Revenue Law--Ejectment--Petition filed by Gram Panchayat seeking ejectment of petitioner from land owner by Gram Panchayat--During pendency of proceeding application under Section 11 filed--By impugned order collector adjudicated on claim of rival parties under Section 11 and without affording any opportunity to petitioners to raise any defence suo moto disposed of application under Section 7--Impugned order set-aside--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Sections 7 & 11. (Para 9)
----------------------
Jagdish Chander v. State of Haryana
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. D. Anand
Criminal Misc. No.M-33245 of 2008
Jagdish Chander
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 17/12/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate.
(A) Criminal Law--Premature release--Haryana Government policy dated 12.4.2002--Petitioner had undergone actual period of 14 years 8 months and 11 days and total sentence of 17 years 8 months and 14 days on 13.6.2008--Admittedly, petitioner is eligible for consideration in terms of policy prevalent on the date of conviction--Release of petitioner delayed on account of dereliction on the part of the competent authority--Petitioner ordered to be released forthwith, as an interim measure on furnishing of adequate surety, subject to ultimate decision in the matter. 2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 3393 relied--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 433-A.
(B) Constitutional Law--Precedent--Review petition pending before the Apex Court against judgment--The competent authority cannot, in the absence of a stay order, withhold the implementation of the Apex Court verdict--|Constitution of India, 1950, Article 141.
--------------------
Bhupinder Nath v. Satish Chand
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
R.S.A No. 1237 of 1986
Bhupinder Nath
v.
Satish Chand
{Decided on 12/12/2008}
For the Appellant: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S.Kohli, Advocate and Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to sell--Limitation--Suit for specific performance for agreement to sell property--Mere plea that it was filed on last day does not defeat right of respondent to seek specific performance.
(A) Specific Performance--Agreement to sell--Limitation--Suit for specific performance for agreement to sell property--Mere plea that it was filed on last day does not defeat right of respondent to seek specific performance. (Para 8)
(B) Specific performance--Agreement to sell--Khasra number of property changed as consequence of some acquisition--Identity of property not in dispute--Contention of respondent that specific performance of specific khasra No. in agreement could only be sought--Not tenable. (Para 3 & 4)
(C) Specific Performance--Agreement to sell--Plea of hardship not taken in written statement--When plea of hardship had not been raised by party concerned, examination of provisions of Section 20(2) (b) of Specific Relief Act would not arise at all--|Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 20(2) (b). (Para 7)

-------------------
Jarnail Singh v. Gram Panchayat, Mahan Singh Wala
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar
The Hon’ble Ms.Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
CWP No. 4619 of 2005
Jarnail Singh
v.
Gram Panchayat, Mahan Singh Wala
{Decided on 11/12/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr.Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: Mr.P.C.Goel, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
IMPORTANT POINT
Common Land--Procedings under Section 7 would remain in abeyance if question of title is raised during pendency of procedings.
(A) Revenue Law--Ejectment--Question of title--If a question relating to the issue of title is raised during the pendency of the proceedings under section 7 of the Village Common Lands Act, then proceedings under section 7, shall remain in abeyance to await the finalisation of the proceedings under section 11 of the Village Common Lands Act, and would reinitiate/ re-commence after the decision is rendered under section 11--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Sections 7 & 11. (Para 3)
(B) Revenue Law--Ejectment--Petition filed by Gram Panchayat seeking ejectment of petitioner from land owner by Gram Panchayat--During pendency of proceeding application under Section 11 filed--By impugned order collector adjudicated on claim of rival parties under Section 11 and without affording any opportunity to petitioners to raise any defence suo moto disposed of application under Section 7--Impugned order set-aside--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Sections 7 & 11. (Para 9)
----------------------
Jagdish Chander v. State of Haryana
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. D. Anand
Criminal Misc. No.M-33245 of 2008
Jagdish Chander
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 17/12/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate.
(A) Criminal Law--Premature release--Haryana Government policy dated 12.4.2002--Petitioner had undergone actual period of 14 years 8 months and 11 days and total sentence of 17 years 8 months and 14 days on 13.6.2008--Admittedly, petitioner is eligible for consideration in terms of policy prevalent on the date of conviction--Release of petitioner delayed on account of dereliction on the part of the competent authority--Petitioner ordered to be released forthwith, as an interim measure on furnishing of adequate surety, subject to ultimate decision in the matter. 2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 3393 relied--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 433-A.
(B) Constitutional Law--Precedent--Review petition pending before the Apex Court against judgment--The competent authority cannot, in the absence of a stay order, withhold the implementation of the Apex Court verdict--|Constitution of India, 1950, Article 141.
--------------------
Bhupinder Nath v. Satish Chand
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
R.S.A No. 1237 of 1986
Bhupinder Nath
v.
Satish Chand
{Decided on 12/12/2008}
For the Appellant: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S.Kohli, Advocate and Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to sell--Limitation--Suit for specific performance for agreement to sell property--Mere plea that it was filed on last day does not defeat right of respondent to seek specific performance.
(A) Specific Performance--Agreement to sell--Limitation--Suit for specific performance for agreement to sell property--Mere plea that it was filed on last day does not defeat right of respondent to seek specific performance. (Para 8)
(B) Specific performance--Agreement to sell--Khasra number of property changed as consequence of some acquisition--Identity of property not in dispute--Contention of respondent that specific performance of specific khasra No. in agreement could only be sought--Not tenable. (Para 3 & 4)
(C) Specific Performance--Agreement to sell--Plea of hardship not taken in written statement--When plea of hardship had not been raised by party concerned, examination of provisions of Section 20(2) (b) of Specific Relief Act would not arise at all--|Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 20(2) (b). (Para 7)

-------------------
Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
C.W.P. No. 14201 of 2008 (O&M)
Baljit Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 20/11/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ramandeep Singh Pandher, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.1 to 4: Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
For the Respondent No.5: Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.6 to 9: Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Election of Sarpanch--When all panches were present, adjouring of meeting without any cause is not justified--Declaration of sarpanch after wards illegal.
Election Law--Election of Sarpanch--Validity of--Fraud played by Presiding Officer--Out of 9 panches 5 panches who are petitioners were present in first meeting, remaining 4 panches were not present--Said meeting was adjourned due to lack of quoram--In next meeting all 9 panches were present but Presiding officer without any justification adjourned the meeting without conducting election of sarpanche which under law he was duty bound to conduct--On next meeting Presiding Officer did not come present at venue and did not conduct election--Later on proceedings were recorded at a different place which was shown to be attended by 6 panches who elected one of them as Sarpanch--Same Presiding officer played similar fraud in another village declared one panch elected as Sarpanch without there being any election--In fact and circumstances particularily when fraud is played by Presiding Officer to election process and election of village meeting in which Sarpanch was elected quashed--|Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Section 13-A--Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994.
----------------
Khazan Singh v. Prithvi Singh Sharma
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Revision No. 3296 of 2001
Khazan Singh
v.
Prithvi Singh Sharma
{Decided on 11/12/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate.
(A) Rent Law--Eviction--Change of user--Premises let out for residential purposes--Tenant used to carry business of Band Master--Photographs showing that tenants parked their vehicle having musical instruments fixed there in--Therefore, room let out for residential purpose is changed to shop not only amount to change of user but by playing musical instruments in locality caused nuisance--Tenant liable to be evicted. (Para 14 & 17)
(B) Rent Law--Eviction--Personal necessity--Large family--Entire premises consists of eight rooms--During pendency of eviction proceedings in last 21 years family needs of landlord have grown--Landlord at present is having a son who has four children and two daughters and two sisters who visit landlord on and off--In view of large family entire premises is required by landlord--Tenant required to be evicted on ground of personal necessity. (Para 18, 19 & 20)
(C) Rent Law--Eviction--Non-payment of Rent--Deficient tender--Tenant cannot be evicted on ground of non payment of complete rent, as any deficiency in tender can be made good later by giving an opportunity to tenant. (Para 13)
----------------
Raghbir Singh v. Trust, Sainiyan Mohalla Sainipura, Rohtak
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Revision No. 6533 of 2008
Raghbir Singh
v.
Trust, Sainiyan Mohalla Sainipura, Rohtak
{Decided on 10/12/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction--Encroachment on vacant land of landlord impairs the value of utility of the property.
Rent Law--Eviction--Unauthorized constrution--Tenant who was in occupation of two shops unauthorizedly raised construction over vacant land of land lord and carve out a door in partitioned wall of premises rented out to him for having access to shops--Relationship of landlord and tenant is of a trust--Encroachment by the tenant whether amount to trespass or not, may fasten the tenant with a criminal action or a civil liability but as a tenant if he include the encroached area with the tenant premises, it certainly impairs the value and utility of the property--Petitioner also inducted subtenant without written consent of landlord--Tenant liable to be evicted--|Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13.
----------------------
Labh Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
C.W.P. No.20680 of 2008
Labh Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 15/12/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. I.S. Saggu, Advocate.
For the caveator-Respondent No.4: Ms. Poonam Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate.
Co-operative Law--Membership of co-operative society--Regularisation of--Petitioner illegally got himself enrolled as member being legal heir of ‘I’--As per record of society respondent no.4 was nominated as nominee of ‘I’ during his life time--Therefore, respondent no.4 was entitled to be enrolled as member of society--Induction of petitioners as member of society wholly illegal--|Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. (Para 7 & 8)

------------------
Smt. Hira Devi v. State of Punjab
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jora Singh
C.W.P. No. 15416 of 2007
Smt. Hira Devi
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 07/11/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Iqbal Singh Rangpuri, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Allotment of House--Power of resumption/cancellation of plots, houses and commercial sites etc. should be exercised only as last report.
Land and Property Law--Allotment--Cancellation of--Unauthorised construction--Eviction--Allotment of house under E.W.S.H. scheme--Entire amount of installment paid--Allotment of house cancelled on 13.11.1992 on ground of unauthorised construction--No steps taken over a period of 10 years to implement cancellation order--Only stay taken on 16.5.2003 when notice of eviction was sent--Thereafter petitioner availed remedy of appeal and revision--Despite removing of unauthorised construction revisional authority upheld order of cancellation of allotment--Not justified--Depriving the petitioner of her title to the small hutment allotted to her under the E.W.S.G.H.S. would be disproportionate to the object of planned development as postulated in allotment letter--Order of cancellation of allotment of house set aside--However, penalty of Rs.5000/- imposed for keeping unauthorised construction for longer time--Held; Power of resumption/cancellation of plots, houses and commercial sites etc. should be exercised only as last report--|Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, Sections 45 and 46. (Para 5, 6, 9 & 11)

--------------------
Anil Sachar v. M/s Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd.
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. D. Anand
Criminal Misc. No.A-379-MA of 2007
Anil Sachar
v.
M/s Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd.
{Decided on 16/12/2008}
For the Appellants: Mr. Punit Kansal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Dishonour of cheque--Offence by company--Cheque issued by director of company in discharge of liability of its sister concern company--No averment in complaint about commonness of Board of Directors between two concerns--Complaint quashed.
(A) Dishonour of Cheque--Contractual liability--Averment in complaint that in order to discharge liability of making payments accused issued two cheques in favour of complainant through their sister concern duly signed by one of its director--No averment that indicated director issued that cheque in order to discharge liability which respondent No.1 had incurred--In order to attract the applicability of the provisions of Section 138 of the Act, it was incumbent upon the appellants/complainant to make a precise averment that the commonness of the Board of Directors between the two indicated concerns notwithstanding, the cheques under reference had been issued by the indicated Director for discharge of the liability incurred by the other concern--Finding exoneration of respondent/accused upheld--|Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138. (Para 11, 12, 13 & 14)
(B) Dishonour of cheque--Offence by company--Cheque issued by director of company in discharge of liability of its sister concern company--No averment in complaint about commonness of Board of Directors between two concerns--Accused held not liable--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138.
------------------
Surjit Singh v. Tejinder Singh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Revision No. 6226 of 2008
Surjit Singh
v.
Tejinder Singh
{Decided on 20/11/2008}
For the petitioner: Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate.
(A) Rent Law--Eviction--Personal Necessity--Landlord, 100% blind wanted demised premises for running S.T.D./P.C.O. booth with help of his wife--Ground of bonafide personal necessity made out--Land lord denied eviction for 12 years due to pending litigation for a meager rent of Rs.125/-.--Eviction of tenant upheld--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-A.
(B) Rent Law--Eviction--Change of use--Condition in rent note that change of user is not permitted until written consent is recorded--Shop given on rent for running business of photography is now used for running shoe shop--Eviction upheld--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-A. (Para 15)
(C) Rent Law--Eviction--Revision--If view formulated by learned appellate court is one which is possible and is based on true appreciation of evidence--High Court should refrain from re-appraisal and re-appreciation of evidence while exercising revisional jurisdiction--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-A. (Para 15)
--------------------
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 81
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
Criminal Revision No.1693 of 2007
Rajesh Kumar
v.
Sahil Sawhney
{Decided on 20/11/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Maintenance--Mother has no right to relinquish the right of maintenance on behalf of her child, by accepting permanent alimony, who was at that time was so young and incapable for taking any decision for himself.
Criminal Law--Maintenance--Young minor child seeking maintenance form his father--Mother accepted Rs.60,000/- as permanent alimony for setting all claims of maintenance in future for herself and her child who was 4 years and 4 month old--Question arises if arrived compromise elected between parents of child would be sufficient to statutory right of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the child ? NO--Stand of father that he is under no obligation to pay maintenance to child as a full and final payment towards maintenance including that of child is made to his ex-wife--Learned Additional Sessions Judges observed that mother has no right to religious relinquish the right of maintenance on behalf of her child who was at that time so young and incapable for taking any decision for himself--Matter remanded to learned Magistrate to decide whether Rs.60,000/- paid as maintenance in year 1997 was illusory or not--High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction would have suo-moto power to do substantial justice between parties--Child need not to establish his right any further before Magistrate--Petitioner father directed to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- per month as maintenance from date of application filed by child--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 and 127. (Paras 6, 7 & 9)

--------------------
Punita Chaudhary v. State of Haryana
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 84
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jora Singh
C.W.P. No. 3129 of 2008
Punita Chaudhary
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 08/12/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vishal Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana.
For the Respondent Nos. 3 and 5: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 4: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of Land--Mere issuance of a notification under Section 17(1) and 17(2) would not be suffice for dispensing with the filing of objections unless a notification under Section 17(4) showing application of mind by the Government is issued.
Acquisition of Land--No justification for acquire land of petitioners when Government land is available--Impugned notification quashed.
(A) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of land--Release of Land--Public purpose--Invocation of urgency clause--Acquisition of land for construction of approach road from national highway to Thermal Power Plant--Three months time taken for issuance of notification--Proposed acquisition if permitted would divide college building and factory--No decision of State Government for dispensing with provisions of Section 5-A--Mere issuance of a notification under Section 17(1) and 17(2) would not be suffice for dispensing with the filing of objections unless a notification under Section 17(4) showing application of mind by the Government is issued--Moreover, approach road could be constructed through abandoned water channel which has initially approved--Curves on road could not be avoided whether approach road is constructed on land or on land of abandoned water channel--No justification for acquire land of petitioners when Government land is available--Impugned notification quashed--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, 6, 5A and 17. (Paras 16, 18 & 19)
(B) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of land--Public purpose--Invocation of urgency clause--Notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 issued after date of publication of notification under Section 4 and 6 read with Section 17 issued on same date--Not proper--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, 6, 5A and 17. (Para 14)

--------------
Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 91 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi
Civil Appeal No. 5099 of 2007 with Crl.A. No. 491 of 2006
Gaurav Nagpal
v.
Sumedha Nagpal
{Decided on 19/11/2008}
For the Appellant : Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Mr. Debmalya Benerjee, Ms. Prachi Goel and Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Advocates.
For the Respondent-in-Person : Mr. Sumedha Nagpal.
IMPORTANT POINT
Custody of Child--Paramount consideration is welfare of child and not rights of parents under a statute.
Custody of Child--Father was affluent and could spend good amount for education of child--However, he flouted various orders of Court leading to even contempt proceedings and managed to keep custody of the child--He cannot be beneficiary of his own wrong--Custody of child given to mother.
(A) Matrimonial Law--Custody of Child--Minor child aged 11 years--Custody given to mother--Father having a spacious house and could spend good amount for child's education--Mother having income of Rs. 40,000/- p.m. and living in two rooms flat--However, father by flouting various orders leading even to initiation of contempt proceedings, managed to keep custody of the child--He cannot be a beneficiary of his own wrong--Custody rightly given to mother--Visiting right given to father--|Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 6 and 13. (Para 44-46)
(B) Matrimonial Law--Custody of child--Paramount consideration is 'welfare of child' and not rights of parents under a statute for the time being in force--|Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 and 13--Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25. (Para 35)
(C) Matrimonial Law--Custody of child--Law summed up-
i. In determining the question as to who should be given custody of a minor child, the paramount consideration is the 'welfare of the child' and not rights of the parents under a statute for the time being in force.
ii. The power and duty of the Court under the Act is the welfare of minor--In considering the question of welfare of minor, due regard has of course to be given to the right of the father as natural guardian but if the custody of the father cannot promote the welfare of the children, he may be refused such guardianship.
iii. Merely because there is no defect in his personal care and his attachment for his children--which every normal parent has, he would not be granted custody--Simply because the father loves his children and is not shown to be otherwise undesirable does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the welfare of the children would be better promoted by granting their custody to him--Children are not mere chattels nor are they toys for their parents.
iv. Section 6 of the Act constitutes father as a natural guardian of a minor son--But that provision cannot supersede the paramount consideration as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.
v. When the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has to justify the demands--The Court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues--The court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor.
vi. The moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh with the Court as well as its physical well being--Though the provisions of the special statutes which govern the rights of the parents or guardians may be taken into consideration, there is nothing which can stand in the way of the Court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases--|Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 6 and 13--Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25. (Para 35, 38-43)
-----------------------
Krishan Kumar v. Rajmal & Anr.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
C.R. No.6175 of 2008
Krishan Kumar
v.
Rajmal & Anr.
{Decided on 24/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6, R.17--Amendment of pleading--Plaint sought to be amended--Suit for mandatory injunction--Trench/Khai alleged to be in existence abutting to northern wall--Amendment sought--Plea that it is in fact towards eastern wall--Typographical mistake only--Suit fixed for filing replication and framing of these--Amendment allowed.
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6, R.17--Amendment of pleading--Plaint sought to be amended--Suit for mandatory injunction--Amendment sought to claim relief of damages caused due to digging up trench/Khai cracks have appeared on the wall--Relief claimed to be added is incidental to main relief--Amendment allowed.
------------
Harpreet Singh v. M/s International Cars & Motors Ltd.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2544
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar
Arbitration Case No. 28 of 2008
Harpreet Singh
v.
M/s International Cars and Motors Ltd. & Anr.
{Decided on 24/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvinder Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13--Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 11--Lease deed between the parties--Arbitration clause in lease deed--Claim regarding recovery of lease amount--Sought to be resisted on the ground of referable to arbitrator--When claim is of mere recovery of lease amount then dispute can be referred to arbitrator.
---------------
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2547 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. M. Lodha
Civil Appeal No. 5241 of 2002
Steel Authority of India Ltd.
v.
Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd.
{Decided on 09/09/2009}
IMPORTANT POINT
Award--Setting aside of--Jurisdiction of arbitrator--Compensation for liquidated damage--Where arbitrator has given elaborate reasons that compensation clause of Contract is not attracted for breaches for which compensation is claimed and such view is possible view--In circumstances award is not amenable to correction by the Court.
(A) Constitution of India, 1950, Art.136--Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.30/33--Award--Setting aside of--Jurisdiction of--Arbitrator--Court below concurrently held that arbitrator has gone into issues of facts toughly, applied his mind to pleadings evidence before him and terms of contract and then passed duly considered award--No ground for setting aside award made out--View of arbitrator is possible view--No Interference. (P.38) (B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.30/33--Arbitrator--Jurisdiction Decisions of Supreme Court summarised -
(i) In a case where an arbitrator travels beyond the contract, the award would be without jurisdiction and would amount to legal misconduct and because of which the award would become amenable for being set aside by a Court.
(ii) An error relatable to interpretation of the contract by an arbitrator is an error within his jurisdiction and such error is not amenable to correction by Courts as such error is not an error on the face of the award.
(iii) If a specific question of law is submitted to the arbitrator and he answers it, the fact that the answer involves an erroneous decision in point of law does not make the award bad on its face.
(iv) An award contrary to substantive provision of law or against the terms of contract would be patently illegal.
(v) Where the parties have deliberately specified the amount of compensation in express terms, the party who has suffered by such breach can only claim the sum specified in the contract and not in excess thereof. In other words, no award of compensation in case of breach of contract, if named or specified in the contract, could be awarded in excess thereof.
(vi) If the conclusion of the arbitrator is based on a possible view of the matter, the court should not interfere with the award.
(vii) It is not permissible to a court to examine the correctness of the findings of the arbitrator, as if it were sitting in appeal over his findings.
(C) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.30 & 33--Award--Setting aside of--Jurisdiction of arbitrator--Compensation for liquidated damage--View of arbitrator that breach due to refusal on part of SAIL to supply materials do not fall within ambit of relevant terms contained in compensation clause 7.2 of agreement and that section 74 of contract act is not-applicable--It founded on diverse grounds elaborately discussed in award--Such view is possible view on construction of clause 7.2--Not found absurd, or perverse or unreasonable by any three Courts below--No case of jurisdiction under Section 136 of Constitution. (P.31)
(D) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.30 & 33--Award--Setting aside of--Jurisdiction of arbitrator--Compensation for liquidated damage--Where arbitrator has given elaborate reasons that compensation clause of Contract is not attracted for breaches for which compensation is claimed and such view is possible view--In circumstances award is not amenable to correction by the Court. (P.32)
(E) Constitution of India, 1950, Art.136--Special leave petition--New plea--Cannot be allowed to be raised in an appeal under Article 136 which was not raised before High Court. (P.36)
(F) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.30 & 33--Contract Act, S.74--In absence of any agreement specifying damage for breach alleged Section 74 not attracted. (P.33)
——————
M/s Dashmesh Rice Mills v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Crop. Ltd.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2536
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
FAO No. 4060 of 2008
M/s Dashmesh Rice Mills & Ors.
v.
The Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (PUNSUP) and Ors.
{Decided on 31/08/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. S. P. Garg, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C S Bakshi, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Arbitration--Dispute covered under expected matter required to be decided by Managing Director and not by Arbitrator
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.4 & 6--Jurisdiction of Arbitrator--Expected matter--Dispute regarding delay in delivery of rice as well as shortage of rice--Decision of dispute already available in agreement itself--Dispute covered under expected matter required to be decided by Managing Director and not by Arbitrator. (Para 7)
----------------
Hari Singh v. State of Haryana
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2538
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jora Singh
Crl.Rev.No. 1516 of 1999
Hari Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 18/08/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.S.Narula, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.S. Godara, DAG, Haryana.
Punjab Excise Act, S.61(1)(a)--Conviction--Recovery of 15 boxes each containing 12 bottle of country made liquor--Minor discrepancies in testimonies of witnesses but not material one--Link evidence also complete--Held that petitioner committed offence under Section 61(1)(a)--However, petitioner is first offender and was 25 years old when recovery was affected--Petitioner is now 40 years is to become hard Criminal if sent to jail to undergo imprisonment of one years as directed by trial Court--Petitioner released on probation. (P.9,11,12 & 13)
----------------
Bharpur Singh v. Financial Comm. (Animal Husbandry), Punjab & Ors
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2540
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mr. S.S. Saron
Civil Writ Petition 13391 of 2009
Bharpur Singh
v.
Financial Commissioner (Animal Husbandry), Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 31/08/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Singla, Advocate.
For Caveator-respondents-5 to 11: Mr Sherry K Singla, Advocate.
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887--Revenue Record--Title--Mutation sanctioned in favour of respondents on basis of natural succession by ignoring Will challenged--Held that mutation an entry of mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to property nor has it any presumptive value on title--Question as to title based on a Will or otherwise is to be decided civil Court on basis of evidence is to be decided by Civil Court on basis of evidence--To ascertain whether Will is genuine or not is domain of Civil Court--Petitioner relegated to remedy of filing of civil suit--However, Respondent not to alienate or transfer of create any encumbrance on land till application for temporally injunction is decided by Civil Court.

--------------