Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Accident--Limitation--Claim petition filed after deletion of Sub-section 3 of S.166 of 1988 Act for claiming compensation arising out of an accident which had taken place before enforcement of 1988 Act on 1.7.89 could not be dismissed as time barred. Accident--Claim Petition--Dismissed-in-default--Fresh Petition--Not maintainable.

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 990
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
FAO No. 290 of 1989 (O&M)
Smt. Gul Devi & Anr.
v.
Surjit Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 09/03/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate.
For the Insurance Company; Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Accident--Limitation--Claim petition filed after deletion of Sub-section 3 of S.166 of 1988 Act for claiming compensation arising out of an accident which had taken place before enforcement of 1988 Act on 1.7.89 could not be dismissed as time barred.
Accident--Claim Petition--Dismissed-in-default--Fresh Petition--Not maintainable.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 & 58(6)--Claim Petition--Limitation--Whether claim petition filed after deletion of Sub-section 3 of S.166 of 1988 Act for claiming compensation arising out of an accident which had taken place before enforcement of 1988 Act on 1.7.89 could be dismissed as time barred--Held,NO
Issue stands authoritatively concluded by Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that even in the cases where the accident had taken place when the 1939 Act was in force and a claim petition had been filed after the enforcement of the 1988 Act, especially after the deletion of Sub-section 3 Section 166 of the 1988 Act, the claim petition cannot be dismissed on account of limitation--It was opined considering the fact that it was a piece of beneficial legislation, where mere delay should not be a ground to non-suit the claimant, who may have lost the bread earner of the family or suffered grievous injuries--In fact, to take care of such situation and also delay in filing of claim petitions and also the disposal thereof, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Jai Parkash’s case has issued certain directions to the police authorities as well as the Tribunals in the country to take steps strictly in terms of Section 158(6) of the 1988 Act by recording the Accident Information Report in Form No. 54 and submitting the same to the concerned Tribunal within 30 days of the registration of FIR mentioning requisite details therein--The Tribunals have also been directed to consider such reports as claim applications under Section 166 of the 1988 Act and decide without waiting for formal claim petitions. (Para 9, 15 & 16)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Claim Petition--Dismissed-in-default--Fresh Petition--Not maintainable--Earlier Petition filed by father of deceased dismissed in default--No further proceedings initiated to get that petition restored--Fresh petition filed on his behalf not maintainable--Once claim on his behalf is dismissed, apportionment on account of compensation in his favour will also go. (Para 17)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Mother of deceased granted compensation of Rs. 40,000/--She is also entitled Rs.10,000/- on account of transportation, funeral expenses, loss of estate etc.--She is also entitled to interest @ 6% from date of filing of claim petition till realization of amount. (Para 18)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.17, R.1

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Civil Revision No.429 of 2010
Gurpreet Singh
v.
Satpal Nirmal & Ors.
{Decided on 15/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4: Mr. Anant Kataria, Advocate.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.17, R.1--Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21--Administration of justice--Speedy disposal--Civil dispute--Issues were framed on 23.10.2002--Case was not fixed for leading evidence--Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of one year. (Para 2 & 4)

Gift--Oral Gift--Validity of--Gift of immovable property which is not registered is bad in law and cannot pass any title to donee.

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 986
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
RSA No.364 of 1981(O&M)
Makhan Singh
v.
Joginder Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 11/03/2010}
For the Appellant: Ms. Simran Chahal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Gift--Oral Gift--Validity of--Gift of immovable property which is not registered is bad in law and cannot pass any title to donee.
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.123--Oral Gift--Validity of--Gift of immovable property which is not registered is bad in law and cannot pass any title to donee--Any wrong concession given by counsel of plaintiff/appellant before First Appellate Court cannot confer any title in favour of defendants pursuant to alleged gift which in eye of law is void ab initio and nonest. (Para 16 & 18)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872, S.115--Estoppel--Wrong concession on question of law made by counsel is not binding on his client. (Para 17)

Succession Act, 1925

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 984
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
C.R. No. 1163 of 2010
Madan Lal
v.
Nirmal Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 23/02/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suryakant Gautam, Advocate.
Succession Act, 1925-Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.18, R.3--Evidence At, 1872, S.106--Rebuttal Evidence--Burden of Proof--Will--Claim for right of inheritance to estate of deceased on basis of natural succession--Plaintiff also pleaded that deceased never executed any Will during his lifetime and alleged Will claimed by defendant is resulted of fraud and misrepresentation--Defendant pleaded execution of will by deceased--Therefore plaintiff has right in rebuttal to lead evidence to prove that Will was in fact never executed by deceased and plaintiff can examine finger print expert for this purpose. (Para 8,9 & 10)

Rejection of plaint--Plaint cannot rejected on ground that ad-valorem court fee on market value of suit property was not paid

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 982
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Civil Revision No. 6115 of 2009
Satpal & Anr.
v.
Radhey Shyam & Ors.
{Decided on 04/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. GS Punia, Advocate.
For the Respondent nos. 1 and 2: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate,
For he Remaining Respondents: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Rejection of plaint--Plaint cannot rejected on ground that ad-valorem court fee on market value of suit property was not paid
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 7, R.11--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 6 R.17--Rejection of plaint--Amendment of plaint--Plaintiffs sought relief of joint possession of suit property to extent of half share and sought partition of suit property and permanent injunction--Plaint cannot be rejected because plaintiffs have pleaded that they are owners and in joint possession of property to extent of half share--Moreover, Plaintiffs clarified their position in reply to application as to how they became owners of half share of suit property--Even according to jamabandi plaintiff no. 1 has share in suit property--Plaintiff no. 2 claims to have got share in suit by way of gift and entry to their effect is also made in jamabandi--Consequently plaintiffs have been rightly allowed to amend plaint to this effect--However plaintiffs are subjected to cost RS.2000/- for amendment of plaint. (Para 6)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 7, R.11--Rejection of plaint--Plaint cannot rejected on ground that ad-valorem court fee on market value of suit property was not paid--Issue of valuation of court fee can be decided only after framing of issue and recording of evidence. (Para 7)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 981
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
RSA No.2632 of 2009 (O & M)
Mukhtiar Singh
v.
Harbhajan Singh
{Decided on 16/03/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100--Money suit--Second appeal--Execution of pronote--Allegations of fraud & misrepresentation--Execution of pronote & receipt duly proved--Mere denial of defendant is not sufficient to rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence. (Para 4)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.34--Money Suit--Interest--Contractual transaction--Defendant agreed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on loan amount--Courts below awarded interest @ 12.5% only--No fault can be found on the question of interest. (Para 5)

Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, S.3

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 980
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
CRA No. M 464-SB of 2009 (O&M)
Balwant Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 17/02/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate.
For the Respondent State: Mr. B B S Teji, AAG, Punjab.
Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, S.3--Conviction--Compromise--Allegation levelled in complaint that appellant used contemptuous language--Parties compromised matter with intervention of respectable of village--Dispute totally personal in nature--Compromise accepted--Conviction set-aside--Appellant acquitted. (Para 7, 8 & 9)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439(1)

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 978
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-36803 of 2009
Bijender @ Kaka
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 04/03/2010}
For the Petitioner(In Crl. Misc. No. M- 36803 of 2009): The Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate
For the Petitioner (in Crl. Misc. No. M-1357 of 2010): Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Paramjit Batta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439(1)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 342, 365, 392, 397 and 120-B--Bail--Attempt to murder--Petitioners could not be arrested during investigation and declared proclaimed offender--Other accused tried by court were acquitted as complainant and her husband turned volte-face and resiled from their previous statement--Prosecution relying upon same evidence against petitioner--Nothing to show that they had knowledge of registration of FIR against them--Petitioners released on bail. (Para 5, 6 & 7)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 977
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ram Chand Gupta
Crl. M.No. M- 28807 of 2009 (O&M)
Karnail Singh & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 08/03/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr.H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A and 406--Cruelty to wife--Anticipatory Bail--Demand of dowry--Petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant joined investigation--They are no more required for any custodial interrogation--Husband of complainant already arrested and released on bail--No allegations that petitioners are likely to abscond or to dissuade witnesses from deposing true facts--Interim bail granted confirmed subject to compliance of conditions contained in S.438(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 5, 7 & 8)

Second Appeal--High Court while hearing the second appeal can go into the question of fact when material is already available on the record

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 972
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
RSA No.1776 of 1982
Balbir Singh & Ors.
v.
Rajinder Parshad & Ors.
{Decided on 23/02/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. J. K. Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Second Appeal--High Court while hearing the second appeal can go into the question of fact when material is already available on the record
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.58 & 60--Evidence Act, 1872, S.91 & 92--Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913--Reliance of evidence to contradict contents of registered mortgage deed--Suit for redemption of mortgage--Father of defendant no. 3, alleged tenant, was one of the party to the mortgage deed--Neither mortgagor i.e. defendants No.7 to 11, from whom defendant No.3 alleges to have taken property on lease, nor defendant No.2, who is father of the defendant No.3, had come in the witness box, to explain that in fact defendant No.3 was tenant in actual physical possession prior to the execution of the mortgage--Any evidence led by defendant No.3, is not admissible in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act to disprove the contents of the document. (Para 15)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872, S.91 & 92--Reliance of evidence to contradict contents of registered mortgage deed--Oral evidence sometime is permissible to explain the contents, terms and conditions of the deed when language is ambiguous and needs explanation--However, if language is not ambiguous, vague and need no explanation and both the parties to the documents do not challenge it, then no evidence is permissible to prove otherwise. (Para 15)
(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.58 & 60--Evidence Act, 1872, S.91 & 92--Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913--Suit for redemption of mortgage--Neither defendant nos.7 to 11, original mortgagors, nor defendant Nos.1 and 2, original mortgagees, came into the witness box to state that defendant No.3 son of defendant No.2 was inducted as tenant and was in actual physical possession over the property in dispute, even prior to the date of mortgage--Merely because defendant Nos.7 to 11 who after selling the property to the plaintiffs had no more interest in the property, support the claim of defendant No.3 in the written statement does not amount to legal proof of the factum of tenancy without coming into the witness box. (Para 17)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100 & 103--Second Appeal--Power of High Court to determine issue of fact--High Court while hearing the second appeal can go into the question of fact when material is already available on the record.
(E) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.58 & 60--Evidence Act, 1872, S.91 & 92--Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913--Suit for redemption of mortgage--Neither mortgagor, alleged landlord, defendant Nos.7 to 11, nor mortgagee, father of the defendant No.3, entered into the witness box to support the claim of the defendant No.3--Hence, finding recorded by the learned first Appellate Court is based on no evidence--Alleged rent receipt filed by the defendant No.3, allegedly issued by the mortgagors i.e. defendants No.7 to 11, is not proved--Held that first Appellate Court was wrong in holding that defendant No.3 was inducted as tenant by the defendants No.7 to 11, even prior to the mortgage--Even otherwise, first Appellate Court should have not disturbed the finding of fact recorded by the learned trial Court, even if, two views were possible--This is also one of the jurisdictional error committed by the first Appellate Court which can be corrected by High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 read with Section 103 C.P.C. (Para 20 & 21)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21 R.55

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 971
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
C.R.No.5806 of2009 (O&M)
State of Punjab & Ors.
v.
Smt. Krishan Kumar & Ors.
{Decided on 18/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Raj AAG Haryana.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21 R.55--Execution--Attachment--Claim of pension--Pension payment order issued in the name of DH--In case the payment of decree holder is released the attachment orders passed by trial Court shall be vacated. (Para 2 & 3)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Ss.38, 39 & 7

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 970
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 728 of 2010 (O&M)
Avtar Singh
v.
Surjit Singh
{Decided on 17/02/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Ss.38, 39 & 7--Mandatory Injunction--Purchase of truck--Proof--Suit for mandatory injunction directing defendant to clear all encumbrances upon truck and to hand over original RC and affidavit to plaintiff--Plaintiff failed to prove receipt for purchase of truck in spite of availing number of opportunities--He is not entitled to mandatory or permanent injunction. (Para 10 & 11)

Arms Act, 1959, S.25(1)(B)

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 968
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.R.No.3026 of 2009 (O&M)
Karnail Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 26/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.
Arms Act, 1959, S.25(1)(B)--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Accused found in possession of .12 bore single barrel gun--Licence of gun was valid only upto 5.6.94--It was not renewed thereafter till gun was recovered on 20.12.2004--Hence, licence was not renewed for more than ten years--Petitioner rightly convicted--He has already undergone four months of sentence--It cannot be said that there was any intention on part of petitioner for not getting licence renewed and rather licence was not renewed inadvertently as he is a illiterate villager--Sentence awarded reduced from six months to period already undergone. (Para 12, 13, 14 & 15)

Surrender of site-Penalty--Demand for the balance penalty was made after more than 2 years and 6 months of the acceptance of surrender of the site--Demand quashed.

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) (SC) 965
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly
Civil Appeal No. 1640 of 2010
Daljit Singh
v.
Union Territory Chandigarh through its Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh
{Decided on 09/02/2010}
For the Appellants : Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Mr. Suryanaryana and Ms. Sonika, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Surrender of site-Penalty--Demand for the balance penalty was made after more than 2 years and 6 months of the acceptance of surrender of the site--Demand quashed.
Chandigarh (Sale of Sites & Buildings) Rule, 1960, R.7-A(2) --Surrender of residential plot--Penalty--Site purchased in the open auction--Appellant, highest bidder in the public auction conducted by Administration--He deposited 25 percent of the bid money and took possession of the auctioned site--Appellant requested respondent to accept the surrender of site--Respondent No. 2 accepted the surrender of the site and imposed penalty @ 2.5%--After 2 years and 6 months, respondent No.2 issued notice to the appellants requiring them to deposit Rs.3,38,082/- in terms of Rule 7-A(2) of the Rules, where penalty @5% of the premium ought to be imposed--Appellants challenged the demand of additional penalty--High Court refused to quash the proceedings--Appeal--Whether demand of penalty by 2nd respondent is valid--Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7-A was applicable--R2 did not commit any illegality--Demand for the balance penalty was made after more than 2 years and 6 months of the acceptance of surrender of the site and the appellants' legitimate prayer for withdrawal of the letter of surrender was rejected without any tangible reason--High Court should have quashed the demand raised by respondent No.2 on the ground of arbitrary exercise of power and violation of the doctrine of fairness in state action-- Demand raised by respondent No.2, quashed. (Para 9 to 12)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-36212 of 2009
Narinder Kumar Gupta
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 25/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 467, 408 and 471--Bail--Cheating--Criminal breach of trust by agent--Forgery--Allegations that petitioner, Branch Manager of company doing business of exchanging money after selling travelers cheques of company and receiving amount did not deposit same in account of company--Petitioner in custody for last four months--Allegations of embezzlement substantial--Case is to be proved against petitioner in accordance with law--Trial is likely to take time--Fact that the case is based primarily on documentary evidence and chances of petitioner tempering with same are not there--Petitioner admitted to bail. (Para 6)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1909, R.15--Lambardar

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
LPA No. 62 of 2009 (O&M)
Phool Kumar
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 25/03/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Lambardar--Appointment of--Inter-se merit--There should be no interference with choice made by collector in matter of appointment of Lambardar on basis of merits of candidate even if two views are possible.
Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1909, R.15--Lambardar--Appointment of--Inter-se merit--There should be no interference with choice made by collector in matter of appointment of Lambardar on basis of merits of candidate even if two views are possible--Appellant not in illegal occupation of Panchayat Land--There is no justification for Appellate and Revisional authorities to interfere with well reasoned order passed by Collector appointing appellant as Lambardar--Impugned order set aside. (Para 7 & 10)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438-

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.M.No.M 33208 of 2009 (O&M)
Sandeep Jindal & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 26/03/2010}
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajinder Singh Arya, DAG, Haryana.
For the Complainant: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 and 406--Anticipatory bail--Cheating--Petitioners already joined investigation--They are not required for custodial interrogation--No allegations by state that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade witnesses from deposing true facts in court if released on bail--Interim bail granted confirmed subject to compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 8 & 9)

Friday, July 9, 2010

Succession Act, 1925

Succession Act, 1925
S.63--Evidence Act, 1872, S.68 & 69--Will--Execution of--Proof--Only attesting witness of Will examined did not support Will as he only admitted his signatures on Will but in cross-examination admitted that he never visited place where Will was executed--Scribe also did not produce any scribe register to prove presence of witness or executant at time of registration of Will--Moreover, different dates shown on different pages was a suspicious circumstance which plaintiff failed to explain or dispel--Plaintiff failed to prove execution of Will--Learned Courts below justified in non-suiting plaintiff.; Shugan Chand v. Bachni Devi & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 835

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994
S.20(1)--Election of Gram Panchayat--Disqualification--Respondent no.1 removed from post of Sarpanch--Respondent no.1 not debarred from contesting any election much less for any fixed period.; Jaswant Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A.D.C.), Hoshiarpur & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 853
S.76--Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, S.208(1)(o)--Election of Gram Panchayat--Disqualification--Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (Act of 1994) is later in time than Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act)--Disqualification mentioned in Section 208 of Act would not be operative in face of disqualification provided under Section 11 of Act of 1994 unless and until they both are consistent.; Jaswant Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A.D.C.), Hoshiarpur & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 853

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
S.208(1)(o)--Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, S.76--Election of Gram Panchayat--Disqualification--Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (Act of 1994) is later in time than Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act)--Disqualification mentioned in Section 208 of Act would not be operative in face of disqualification provided under Section 11 of Act of 1994 unless and until they both are consistent.; Jaswant Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A.D.C.), Hoshiarpur & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 853

Punjab Municipal Act, 1911

Punjab Municipal Act, 1911
Octroi Duty--Imposition of--Only sale within the municipal limit does not authorize the municipality to charge octroi on goods--Octroi can be levied and charged when sale of octrioable is made in the octroi area for the purpose of consumption and use within the octroi area--If a person purchases goods to be consumed beyond the octroi area then no octroi can be levied.; Dabur India Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 825
Octroi Duty--No finding recorded on question as to whether goods/products sold were to be consumed or used within municipal unit of Zirakpur--Impugned order quashed--Matter remanded to Appellate Authority for fresh decision in view of observation made by Apex Court in Tata Engineering’s case and Indian Oil Corporation’s case.; Dabur India Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 825

Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995

Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995
S.3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14 (1), 15, 18 and 21, 36--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Petitioner executed three sale deeds out of share held by him in joint property--Individually petitioner has not sold land beyond permissible limit of 1,000/- sq. meter--FIR and framing of charge under Section 36 qua petitioner quashed.; Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 811

Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961

Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961
S.8--Land Acquisition Act, 1894--Acquisition of Land--Public Purpose--For expanding existing market yard--Acquisition of land for public purpose is within domain of state--What area should be acquired and what area should be left out of acquisition is no concern of Courts--Prohibition to establish market yard for purchase and sale of any agricultural produced imposed on other agencies and bodies were Municipal Committee, Panchayat Samities, Panchayat or local authorities and not on State Government to establish any other sub market yard or principal yard.; Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 872

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
S.138--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of Complaint--Dishonour of Cheque--Cheque issued by ‘S’ for payment of instalment of electricity bills dishonoured--Allegation against petitioner that he assured that cheque will be honoured when presented for payment--Offence under Section 138 will be made out only against drawer of cheque--Petitioner being not drawer or signatory of cheque in dispute cannot be held liable for conviction under Section 138--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Mukesh Kumar v. Punjab State Electricity Board ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 807

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
S.55 & 25--Conscious Possession--Acquittal--Recovery of 9 gunny bags of poppy husk--Conscious possession of appellant qua recovered poppy husk bags not established by prosecution--Appellant who would have been charged alternatively for transporting offensive goods without permit not charged under relevant section--Appellants acquitted.; Gurnam Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 857

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Compensation--Release of amount of compensation awarded deposited in fixed deposits declined observing that alleged necessity of petitioner for higher education is not substantiated by any document--Is illegal and non sustainable--As per award amount has to be released to petitioner on attaining age of majority even if he had no immediate necessity for amount--Impugned order set aside--Amount of fixed deposit of petitioner including accused interest ordered to be released.; Tarun Chabbra v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 880
Compensation--Transfer of Vehicle--Liability to bear compensation--Fact that respondent no.2 was registered owner of vehicle in question at time of accident admitted--Truck in question was taken on superdari from police custody after accident by respondent no.2 claiming himself to be owner of vehicle--From facts on record it cannot be said that sale of vehicle as claimed by respondent no.2 was complete in all respects except transfer of ownership in record with Registering Authority--Held; that appellant to whom vehicle was allegedly transferred by way of execution of document though not registered with Registering Authority not liable to bear compensation payable on account of accident in question.; Sham Sunder v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 842
S.163-A--Claim Petition--Maintainability of--Claim by claimant that deceased was of 40 years at time of death and used to earn around Rs.18,000/- p.m. from agriculture and diary farming--Section 163-A of Act is special provision particular for class of persons whose income is Rs.40,000/- p.a.--Person with higher income cannot scale down his income to claim benefit under Section 163-A--Claim petition rightly dismissed being not maintainable.; Mithlesh & others v. Satbir Singh & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 838
S.166--Compensation--Denial of--Accident took place in front of college at 9.30 a.m. when there is heavy rush and traffic--Claimant, who was student neither taken to hospital nor college authorities informed about accident--No MCR recorded--Claimant failed to connect injury with accident--Story put by claimant not believable--He could not claim compensation.; Sudesh v. Virender Singh & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 822

Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963
S.27--Adverse Possession--Facts which are necessary to be pleaded and proved when plea of adverse possession is raised laid down by Apex Court after analyzing law in Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs. Bhikabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Ors. discussed.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether mere non-payment of rent would put to an end to relationship of landlord and tenant so as to assert hostile possession in favour of a person who claims adverse possession--No--Mere non-payment of rent will not put an end to relationship of landlord and tenant so as to declare possession to be open and hostile to true owner.; Jeet Singh through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether plea of adverse possession can be raised by filing suit for declaration by a person who pleads uninterrupted possession--No--Plea of adverse possession is available only as defence.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828
S.27--Adverse Possession--Whether plea of adverse possession can be accepted in absence of particulars regarding possession becoming upon and hostile to true owner--No--In absence of particulars regarding it becoming hostile and open such a plea cannot be answered--Plea of ownership and adverse possession cannot co-exits.; Jeet Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Molu Ram (since deceased) through L.Rs., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 828

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961, S.8--Acquisition of Land--Public Purpose--For expanding existing market yard--Acquisition of land for public purpose is within domain of state--What area should be acquired and what area should be left out of acquisition is no concern of Courts--Prohibition to establish market yard for purchase and sale of any agricultural produced imposed on other agencies and bodies were Municipal Committee, Panchayat Samities, Panchayat or local authorities and not on State Government to establish any other sub market yard or principal yard.; Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 872
S.4 r/w S.17 and S.6 r/w S.17--Notification--Quashing of--Simultaneous notifications under Section 4 r/w S.17 and under Section 6 r/w 17 on same day cannot be published--Notifications liable to be set aside.; Gurdip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 860

Insecticides Act, 1968

Insecticides Act, 1968
S.3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 & 33--Insecticide Rules, 1971, R.27(5)--Quashing of complaint--Misbranding of sample--Sample of insecticide taken from original packing by Insecticide Inspector--Nothing on record that insecticide of which sample was drawn was not stored in same state--Sample not tempered with--Petitioner being dealer/distributor cannot be held liable--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Ramesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 810
S.30(3)--Misbranding--If sample is taken from the original packing of the manufacturer and stored for sale in the same condition, the dealer/distributor is entitled to get protection under Section 30(3) of the Act, if the substance/sample drawn was in its original condition.; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 810

Insecticide Rules, 1971

Insecticide Rules, 1971
R.27(5)--Insecticides Act, 1968, S. 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 & 33--Quashing of complaint--Misbranding of sample--Sample of insecticide taken from original packing by Insecticide Inspector--Nothing on record that insecticide of which sample was drawn was not stored in same state--Sample not tempered with--Petitioner being dealer/distributor cannot be held liable--Complaint qua petitioner quashed.; Ramesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 810

Haryana Urban Development Act, 1977

Haryana Urban Development Act, 1977
S.50--Bar of Civil Court jurisdiction--Allotment of plot--Additional price--Demand Notice--As per terms and conditions of allotment letter defendants had right to demand additional amount on enhancement of price of acquired land--Question, whether demand raised is factually justified or not would not make demand notice null and void--There is significant difference between an action being wrong and an action being null and void--Impugned demand notice cannot said to be null and void--Jurisdiction of Civil Court to try suit is barred by Section 50 of HUDA Act--Plaintiff shall be at liberty to challenge impugned demand notices as per remedies available to them.; Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula & Anr. v. Suresh Chhokar & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 802

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
S.12--Custody of minor--Violation of undertaking given in Court--Consequences--Petitioner-mother took ad-interim custody of minor by winning sympathy for four days--But she abused the same and instead of handing over back custody of minor child retained custody for more than five weeks thereafter instead of four days only--Petitioner is guilty of violating undertaking given in the Court--She is liable to be proceeded against for committing Contempt of Court--However taking sympathetic view of mental state of mother of minor no cost is imposed--Petitioner directed to handover custody immediately to respondent-father today itself. ; Brijesh alias Arzoo v. Raj Kumar Mann, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 801

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949

S.13--Ejectment--Bonafide Necessity--Respondent and his parents made purchase of tenanted premises--Respondent is practicing advocate and is recently married--Claim of respondent for being in occupation of tenanted premises in his own right and on part of his parents to settle him independently not unnatural--Ejectment upheld. ; DR. Pawan Kumar Bansal v. Gaurav Garg & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 817
S.13--Ejectment--Co-owner--Petition filed by co-owner--Other co-owner never objected to maintainability of ejectment petition--Eviction petition is maintainable.; DR. Pawan Kumar Bansal v. Gaurav Garg ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 817
S.13--Ejectment--Non payment of Rent--Tenant denied existence of relationship of landlord-tenant--Rent Controller recorded findings in favour of landlord on part of existence of relationship--No justification to grant of opportunity to tenant to deposit arrears of rent.; DR. Pawan Kumar Bansal v. Gaurav Garg & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 817

Evidence Act, 1872

S.32--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/34--Murder--Dying declaration--Evidentiary value of--Death by burning--Deceased and accused (husband) married in the year 1990--No previous allegation of being harassed or treated with cruelty by accused or members of his family--Statement made by deceased inculpating accused after having been tutored, prompted and instigated by members of her family from parents side who were present there--In such circumstances, dying declaration can not constitute sole basis for recording conviction of accused in absence of any other reliable and trustworthy corroborative evidence--Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt.; Satpal Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 845