Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1977)79PLR570
1. Norati Devi widow of Sarwan Singh deceased filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, for compensation on the ground that car No. 27--C. D. 53 driven by Mr. Kalaus Juergen, Assistant Attache, Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in India, had run over her husband who was going on a cycle on 19-1-1974. Mr. Kalaus Juergen had also been impleaded as respondent No. 1 in that petition, but on an objection raised by him that he was entitled to claim diplomatic immunity his name was struck off from the array of respondents. The learned Tribunal after going into the merits awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- to Smt. Norati Devi directly against the New India Assurance Company, which has come up in appeal before us.2. Mr. Sabharwal, the learned counsel for the appellant--Company, has drawn our attention to S. 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which lays down that after an award has been made against an insured person it would be the duty of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1977)79PLR737
ORDER1. Service is complete in the case.2. The plaintiff--respondents filed a suit for pre--emption of sale of land by one Sardhi in favour of the vendee--petitioners on two grounds, namely, (1) that the plaintiffs are the sons of the brother of the husband of the vendor and (2) that the plaintiffs are co--sharers in the suit--land. During the pendency of the suit the vendees applied to the revenue officer for partition of the suit--land. If partition is effected before the pre--emption suit is disposed of, the plaintiff--respondents would lose their character as co--sharers. To avoid the possibility of such a situation, the plaintiffs made an application to the trial Court under O. 39, R. 1(c) of the Civil P. C. for restraining the vendee--respondents (petitioners before me) from continuing the partition proceedings. The application was allowed by the trial Court, and the appeal of the vendees having failed, they have come up for revision of the appellate order.3. Mr. V. K. Bali, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1978]48CompCas327(P& H); [1979(38)FLR46]
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was an employee of the Punjab National Bank, a nationalised bank. On December 6, 1974, the Assistant Regional Manager of the bank issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for certain alleged malpractices. It was stated in the notice that certain complaints had been received against the petitioner, that the complaints had been investigated by an inspector and that certain malpractices were noticed. The malpractices were stated to be as follows I'1. The undernoted borrowers have given written statements to the investigating officer, duly attested by Oath Commissioner, Mohindergarh, that they paid the amount, mentioned against each, to you as bribe for getting loan from the bank : Rs.(a) Ram Chander, son of RachpalSingh50(b) Bishan Lal, son of KaburChand150(c) Sant Lal, son of Jai Dayal75(d) Tirath Dass, son of HariChand90(e) Ratti Ram, son of KaburChand150Shri Mool Chand, son of Bi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1977)79PLR555
ORDER1. This revision petition arises out of a small cause suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,500/-by way of refund of the said amount allegedly representing excess price paid by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) to the defendant Company (respondent herein) on account of goods supplied by the latter to the former.2. The defendant Company challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court. The issue relating thereto was tried as the preliminary issue. The same having been held against the plaintiff, so this revision petition at its instance.3. Before proceeding to examine the question pertaining to jurisdiction, a few relevant facts bearing on the said issue may be taken notice of. These can be stated thus:4. The plaintiff Surinder Kumar Arora is the sole proprietor of the concern known and styled as Quality Textile Mills, Katra Jallianwala, Amritsar, while the defendant Company is the Bengal National Textile Mills Limited with its registered office at 87, Dharamtola Street, Calcutta. Admittedl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1977)79PLR605
1. This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th August, 1967, of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Amritsar, whereby the suit of the plaintiff--appellant (hereinafter to be called the appellant ) was dismissed in respect of properties in suit except one House No. 369 which was held to be the joint Hindu family property.2. The appellant, Shri Sant Ram, filed the suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, against his father Shri Parma Nand, respondent No. 1, his brothers, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, Smt. Shakuntala, wife of his brother Ram Parkash (respondent No. 4) and one Shri Tilak Raj, Respondent No. 5, for declaration that the appellant and respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 constituted joint Hindu family with his father, respondent No. 1, as Karta or manager and that the properties as detailed in items Nos. 1 to 9 of the plaint were joint Hindu family properties. It was pleaded that some of these properties had been inherited from his grandfather and the other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1978CriLJ600
ORDERGurnam Singh, J.1. Smt. Yashodha Devi filed an application Under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jullun-dur, claiming maintenance from her married daughter Raj Kumari. Mst. Raj Kumari opposed the petition and her main contention was, that Mst. Yashodha Deyi had no right to claim maintenance from her. The Magistrate held that Mst. Yashodha Devi, as a mother, had a right to claim maintenance from her daughter. Mst. Raj Kumari filed a revision petition against the order of the Magistrate which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jullunder, The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur held that the revision petition did not lie and sent the case back to the trial court for deciding the same according to law. Mst. Raj Kumari has filed this application Under Section 482, Cr.PC for quashing the maintenance proceedings filed against her.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the provision for th...
Tag this Judgment!