2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1442
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 1785 of 2010 (O&M)
Gurmukh Singh & Anr.
v.
Bhagat Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 10/05/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate.
Damages--Malicious Prosecution--Suit for damages--Damages assessed, were for expenses incurred, as well as for mental agony suffered by plaintiff/respondents--It was not possible for plaintiff/respondents to lead evidence showing positive damage suffered due to mental agony--Therefore, for the mental agony there was no alternative with learned Courts, but assess damages on guess work, keeping in view status of the parties, and agony suffered--No interference. (Para 9)
READ HEAD NOTES TO JUDGEMENTS OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND ALSO LAWS OF PUNJAB, HARYANA & CHANDIGARH (UT)
Total Pageviews
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38--Permanent Injunction--Possession--Agreement to sell--Two Agreements to sell
- 2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1441
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A.No.1827 of 2010 (O&M)
Magh Singh
v.
Balvir Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 13/05/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate.
Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38--Permanent Injunction--Possession--Agreement to sell--Two Agreements to sell do not contain a recital regarding handing over of possession to appellant--No other material to show that possession was ever with appellant--Suit for permanent injunction for possession of land on basis of two agreements to sell rightly dismissed. (Para 7)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A.No.1827 of 2010 (O&M)
Magh Singh
v.
Balvir Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 13/05/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate.
Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38--Permanent Injunction--Possession--Agreement to sell--Two Agreements to sell do not contain a recital regarding handing over of possession to appellant--No other material to show that possession was ever with appellant--Suit for permanent injunction for possession of land on basis of two agreements to sell rightly dismissed. (Para 7)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)