Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR190
N.K. Sodhi, J.1. A notice dated 19.9.1988 was issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short the Board) to the plaintiff-respondent creating a demand of Rs. 2,87,487/-. The plaintiff-respondent disputed his liability to pay the amount. The Board then threatened disconnection of the electric supply on account of non-payment of the demanded amount. It was then that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for a declaration challenging the legality of the demand notice. Alongwith the plaint an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed seeking ad interim injunction restraining the Board from disconnecting the electric connection. By an order dated 29.9.1988 the trial Court directed the plaintiff-respondent to deposit the amount in dispute and observed that in case the plaintiff succeeded in his suit the Board would be liable to refund the amount alongwith bank rate of interest. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs suit was decreed by the tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1999ACJ498; [1998]93CompCas381(P& H); (1997)117PLR406
M.S. Liberhan, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an award granting compensation of Rs. 80,000 to the claimants against the driver and transferee of the offending vehicle, i.e., truck No. PNP 6544. 2. The sole question raised in this appeal was with respect to the liability of the registered owner, namely, Hans Raj, and of the insurance company, i.e., whether the registered owner is liable to reimburse the claimants and resultantly the insurance company's liability to indemnify the insured, i.e., the registered owner. 3. The learned single judge came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was sold by Hans Raj, the registered owner, to one Mool Chand. Hans Raj, the transferor, was the insurer of the vehicle. The transferor did not intimate the insurance company with respect to the sale of the vehicle. The insurance company did not transfer the policy to thetransferee. Thus, in terms of the contract of indemnity, i.e., the insurance policy, the insurance company was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1998ACJ783; (1997)117PLR173
V.K. Bali, J.1. The claimant-appellants in their petition sought compensation to the tune of Rs. Four Lacs by broadly stating that on December 7, 1983. Surjit Singh posted as Time Clerk at Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project was on his official duty and was checking the time of the vehicles. The Drivers of the vehicle were starting the vehicles with the help of each other. Vehicle No. 1 57 had already started and vehicle No. 1 25 was being started by pushing the same with the help of vehicle No. 157. Both the drivers were handling the vehicles rashly and negligently which caused serious injuries to him i.e. Surjit Singh, as a result of which he died. It was further the case of the claimants that drivers of both the vehicles were negligent and therefore, they were jointly and severally liable in causing the accident. Besides other, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who entered appearance in their defence denied their liability to pay on the ground that the earth moving heavy machines called by the name...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR31
V.K. Jhanji, J.1. This is tenant's revision directed against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby he has been ordered to be evicted on the ground that the premises in his occupation have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.2. Landlord (respondent herein) filed an eviction application against the petitioner on two grounds, namely the petitioner is in arrears of rent with effect from 8.2.1983 and, secondly, the building of which the premises form part of, has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Upon notice of the eviction application, tenant filed written statement and pleaded that his father was a tenant in the demised premises on a rent of Rs. 35/- per month and after the death of his father, he is paying rent to the original owner. On the first date of hearing, arrears of rent along with interest and cost assessed by the Rent Controller were tendered. The ground of non-payment of rent; therefore, no longer survives. Petitioner further denied that the premise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1998P& H104
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was admitted to the course lending to the degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery in the year 1996. One Miss Shiksha who had secured higher merit than the petitioner in the entrance test had been admitted against a non-payment seat. Miss Shiksha left the course. The petitioner who had been admitted against a payment seat, represented that she be adjusted against the non-payment seat and that the fee paid by her be refunded. The claim was considered by the Respondent-College as well as the University. It having been rejected, the petitioner prays that the orders dated October 22, 1996, December 11, 1996 and April 10, 1997 copies of which have been produced as Annexures P. 5, P, 7 and P. 14, be set aside. She further prays that the petitioner be adjusted against the non-payment seat and the fee already paid by her be refunded.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father is a school teacher. He has many li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1999LC199(P& H); 1999LC576(P& H); 1999(108)ELT626(P& H)
H.S. Bedi, J.1. On 3rd May, 1970, Ram Chander, S.H.O. Police Station Bhiwani City, apprehended Jagat Singh and Kumari Shobha Rani, near Rail-way Station, Bhiwani. On the personal search of the two, the S.H.O. recovered 50 gold sovereigns from Jagat Singh and 100 sovereigns from Shobha Rani. He took into possession the old sovereigns and also arrested these two persons under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the following day i.e. 4th May, 1970, the Inspector, Central Excise, Bhiwani took into possession the above said gold sovereigns which were subsequently seized under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Jagat Singh and Sobha Rani then gave statements to the authorities that the gold was to be delivered to the petitioner, on which the house and shop of the petitioner were also searched, but nothing incriminating was found. The petitioner was, however, arrested and a confessional statement taken from him under coercion, on which th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : II(1999)ACC446; (1997)117PLR187
V.K. Bali, J.1. Rita Sharma, a widow with three minors aged 6, 4-1/2 and 1-1/2 years as also dependent parents of V.K. Sharma, a Junior Engineer employed in Rashtriya Chemical and Fertilizer Limited Bombay had Field the petition Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-on account of death of Sh. V.K. Sharma who on the fateful day was riding Motorcycle bearing No. HPG-1269. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal vide its order dated 30,1.1986 allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,12,200/-. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal against the inadequate compensation granted to them by grossly under assessing the pendency by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The MACT also held that accident took place due to the contributor negligence of the offending vehicle i.e. Motor Cycle No. PUD-789 and the deceased who was driving Motor Cycle No. HPG-1269. This finding is also under challenge in this appeal.2. It was inter alia pleaded by the cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)116PLR637
N.K. Kapoor, J.1. This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the Addl. District Judge whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was accepted thus decreeing the suit.2. Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from encroaching upon the vacant land owned and possessed by them. The claim set up by the plaintiffs was contested by the defendant. Defendant in his written statement stated that plaintiffs are neither owner nor in possession of the suit property in dispute. It was further pleaded that the site in dispute belongs to one Surjan who sold it to the defendant vide sale deed dated 30.3.1970 and ever since then defendant is in possession of the site in dispute. Not only this, he has constructed a boundary wall, kitchen and stairs on the site in dispute in April, 1973 and that the suit is not maintainable in the present form.3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed.1. Whether plaintiffs are the owners of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)116PLR740
N.K. Sodhi, J.1. This order will dispose of three revision petitions 1200 of 1996, 4026 and 4556 of 1995 in which common questions of law and facts arise. Sincen the arguments were addressed in Civil Revision 1200 of 1996, the facts are being taken from this case.2. M/s Parmar Construction Company (for short, the contractor) is engaged in the construction of works for various organisations and is registered as an 'A' class contractor. Work of construction of Sarsa Acquiduct of S.Y.L. Canal (Balance Work) was awarded to the contractor and an agreement dated 9.12.1988 executed between him and the State of Punjab. The terms and conditions governing the agreement in question were set out by the parties and it was, inter alia, agreed that the disputes and differences, if any, that may arise between them would be resolved through an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Engineer of the State of Punjab. Clause 67 of the agreement is the Arbitration Clause and it provides that within 30 days...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)116PLR821
N.K. Kapoor, J.1. This is plaintiffs regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge whereby the appeal filed by the defendants has been accepted, thus, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff.2. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order No. 28 dated 20.6.1974 prematurely retiring him from service is illegal, malicious and so liable to be set aside and that the plaintiff should be deemed to be in service and hence entitled to all the privileges and the benefits of service. In addition thereto plaintiff claimed pay for the period from 1.5.1974 to 4.7.1974.3. As per facts which have come on record, plaintiff was working as a secretary in a Gram Panchayat since the year 1954. His services were transferred to Panchayat Samiti, Jalandhar where he had remained working till 4.7.1974 when the impugned order No. 28, dated 20.6.1974 was served upon him.4. Defendants contested the suit, raised few preliminary objections and replied a...
Tag this Judgment!