Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1985P& H356
1. It has often been observed that people who break their marriages for one reason or the other, when re-arrange their lives again in marriage, become prone to break it a new. Yet no arrangement better than marriage has ever been known to the civilized world, be that a sacrament as the Hindus put it, or a holy union or contract as others describe it. The married state is the ideal state from the point of view of civilization, for it is therefrom that man and women better their physical, mental, intellectual and spiritual prospects and it is in that nest that future citizens of the world grow. But pitiable is the condition of such 'break-prone' people if I may use the expression, for they identify themselves as a class apart. Yet, happily, emotional stability gradually comes to an exceptional few. Here in this matrimonial dispute is involved one such couple. Their causes are embodied in FAO No. 1-M and FAO No. 2-M of 1984 which shall stand disposed of by this common order.2. Amarjit Pau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1985CriLJ1411
ORDERM.M. Punchhi, J.1. The twin question which raises its head in this petition is : 'What is the legal status or character of a Nationalised Bank and what is the status of persons in its service or pay? This question arises in this manner.2. The petitioner Kundan Lal Sharma was the Branch Manager of the United Commercial Bank, Bharatgarh Branch. He along with four others was sent up before the learned Special Judge, Patiala, to stand trial under Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corruption Act), as also under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Penal Code.3. Broadly speaking, the case of prosecution is that the petitioner while working as the Branch Manager of the aforesaid Bank, which now stands nationalised, in the capacity of a public servant entered into a criminal conspiracy in the year 1979-80 with the other accused in order to cheat the Bank, and the National Insurance Company and in pursuance thereof ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1986)2CompLJ1310(P& H)
M.R. Sharma, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 291-DB and 511-DB of 1983 as also Criminal Revision No. 627 of 1983, as they all arise out of the same incident.2. Vide his judgment dt. 4-3-1983 and order dt. 5-3-1983, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, convicted and sentenced the two appellants as under:Ram Kumar Under Section 302/34, Imprisonmentand Ratna I.P.C. for life eachappellants.3. Ram Kumar appellant was the real brother of Chander Shekhar deceased who lost his life in this incident. There was some controversy with regard to land raging between the members of the family. It would be useful to refer to the following pedigree table to understand the nature of this controversy : Om Dutt __________________________________________|_________________________________ | | | | | Ram Kumar Chander Gautam Bhagat Parshotam (appellant) Shekhar (died) Ram (deceased) (died) | Ramesh Kumar P.W.64. According to Smt. Surji Devi P.W. 11, her husband Bhagat ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1985CriLJ1757
ORDERM.M. Punchhi, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has arisen in the following manner. The parties to the dispute are the progeny of Sher Singh. Whereas the petitioner is the son of Sher Singh, respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are his daughters/grand-daughters. The estate of Sher Singh comprising agricultural lands and kothas and a tubewell etc. situate thereon, gave rise to a dispute between the parties after the death of Sher Singh. The estate of Sher Singh was mutated by the Revenue Officer between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in equal shares vide order dated 31-1-1983. The petitioner then filed a suit praying that he was the sole legal heir of the property in question and that the order of the Revenue Officer dated 31-1-1983 was illegal, null and void and not binding on the petitioner. He also filed an application for interim injunction under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Civil P.C., praying for the grant of interim injunction restraining the contesting respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1986P& H96
ORDER1. The story which is unfolded in this case shows as to how the Municipal Committee has acted which is not permissible where rule of law prevails.2. H. R. Aggarwal applied to the Municipal Committee. Sonepat for the grant of a licence to work as Surveyor and Draftsmen within the municipal limits in accordance with the Rules and Bye-laws. The administrator of the Municipal Committee is alleged to have told the applicant and other similar applicants and other similar applicants to donate Rs. 500/- each to the Municipal committee if they wanted the licence. Of course, all this was oral and not in writing. With this understanding the Administrator is alleged to have passed an order for the issue of licence to H.R. Aggarwal and other persons. Admittedly, H. R. Aggarwal deposited the donation of Rs. 500/- on 25-5-1974 because in spite of the order of the Administrator dt 23-5-1974, he was not being granted the licence. That very day he made a protest in writing to the Municipal; Committ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1986P& H233
1. On 18th Maghar Samvat 2000 B. K., i.e. on some date in 1943, Babu Ram mortgaged with possession his vacant land measuring 11 Marlas for Rs. 385/- in favour of Parma Nand. The right of redemption was deferred by 59 years and the mortgagee was given right to construct a house without fixing any limit on the cost of construction and it was agreed that at the time of redemption, the mortgagee would be entitled to the cost of construction along with the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per cent per annum together with the mortgage amount. As regards the interest on the mortgage amount, it was equal to the rent of the mortgaged site. The mortgagee is alleged to have constructed the house on the vacant site by spending Rs. 6,000/- sometime after the creation of the mortgage. In spite of seeing that the mortgagee was constructing the house and the cost of construction was disproportionate to the mortgage amount, the mortgagor allowed the normal period of limitation of 30 years to expire a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1985P& H244
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.1. Briefly the facts are that Shri Hardwari Lal respondent No. 2 was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the University) on 27th October, 1977 for a period of three years by the Chancellor, respondent No. 1, exercising the powers under statute 4(6) of the First Statutes of the University contained in the Schedule to the Maharshi Dayanand University Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a promise that his term would be renewed for a similar period. The Chancellor did not renew the term as promised by him. Therefore, the respondent filed Civil Writ Petn. No. 3658 of 1980 for mandamus that the Chancellor be directed to renew the second term inter alia on the ground of promissory estoppel. The Court accepted the writ petition on 16th September, 1981 on the ground that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was attracted and directed the Chancellor to renew the term of the respondent for a period...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2(1985)ACC328
S.S. Sodhi J.1. The main controversy in appeal here is with regard to the ownership of the offending truck.2. Bakshi Madan Lal, while returning home was knocked down and killed by the truck PNP 6544. This happened on August 28, 1977 on Surat Road near Khalsa College, Amritsar. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck.3. The Tribunal further held that at the time of the accident the offending truck was owned by the appellant-Mool Chand and the person driving it was Sukhwant Singh. The claimants, they being the widow and childern of Bakshi Madan Lai deceased, were awarded Rs. 48,000/- as compensation for which both Mool Chand and Sukhwant Singh were held liable.4. The Truck was originally owned by Hans Raj who had insured it with the National Insurance Company. Later, it was sold to the appellant Mool Chand. The point to be determined here is when was this truck sold by Hans Raj to Mool Chand.5. According to Hans ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1986P& H80
1. This First Appeal has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda dt. 6th May, 1963. 2. Briefly the facts are that the property belonging to the appellant-judgment-debtor was got auctioned by the respondent. The auction took place on 17th Aug. 1982. Thereafter the Court confirmed the sale on 24th Aug., 1982. The appellant filed objections against the sale on 6th Sept., 1982 which were dismissed vide the impugned order on the ground that the sale had already been confirmed. The judgment-debtor has come up in appeal to this Court. 3. The only question that arises for determination is, whether the sale could be confirmed before the expiry of period of limitation provided for filing the objections against the sale. O. 21, R. 90 of the Civil P. C. provides that where a property has been sold in execution of a decree, any person whose interests are adversely affected by the sale can apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the grounds specified thereon. Art....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1985P& H251
J.M. Tandon, J.1. The District Employment Officer (respondent) is in occupation of the premises in dispute in Pathankot since before its purchase by the petitioners in August, 1975. The petitioners filed ejectment application in January, 1978, seeking ejectment of the respondent on the ground of personal requirement. The Rent Controller upheld the plea of the petitioners and directed the ejectment of the respondent. The order of the Rent Controller was assailed in appeal which was allowed by the appellate Authority, Gurdaspur. The plea of personal requirement of the petitioners was negatived, order of the Rent Controller set aside and the ejectment application dismissed. The petitioners have challenged the order of the appellate Authority in the present revision.2. The revision was listed for hearing before me for arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the premises can be treated non-residential if used solely for the purpose of business or trade. The office ...
Tag this Judgment!