Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2008P& H178; (2008)151PLR611
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.1. Elections to the Municipal Committee, Pinjore were held on 21.3.2004 in which 15 members were elected and two Ex. officio members, namely, Member of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly were nominated. On 12.4.2004, a meeting was convened under the chairmanship of SDO(C) Kalka regarding administering the oath to the newly elected members of the Municipal Committee in which all the 15 elected members had participated and were administered oath. Vide his order dated 17.2.2005, the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula called a special meeting for 21.2.2005 at 9 a.m. under the chairmanship of SDO (C) Kalka for the election of President and Vice President of Municipal Committee, Pinjore. As per the proceedings of the meeting recorded on 21.2.2005, notice of the special meeting was given to all the 17 members but only 8 members attended the meeting, whose signatures and presence was recorded but since the quorum of the house was required to be 9, the special meetin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)152PLR624
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. This is defendant's regular second appeal challenging the concurrent findings recorded by learned Sub Judge, Hisar vide their judgments and decrees dated 18.8.1986 and 17.9.1988, respectively, vide which the plaintiffs suit for declaration, that he is owner of the suit land with a consequential relief that defendant be restrained from effecting recovery of decretal amount on the basis of order and decree dated 23.5.1984 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Fatehabad in case Himat Rai v. Kehar Singh, has been decreed.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that land measuring 47 bighas 2 biswas was allotted to one Surinder Singh son of Nihal Singh by virtue of allotment No. 132. The plaintiff/respondent averred that Appellant-Himat Rai in collusion with one Kirhan Singh, son of Gurdat Singh, who impersonated himself as Sunder Singh, the original allottee, purchased the suit land along with his three brothers Bansi Dhar, Diwan Chand and Puran Chand through a regis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)2PLR769
Rajive Bhalla, J.1. Challenge in this revision petition is to an order, dated 11.1.2007, passed by the learned appellate Authority, Chandigarh, accepting the appeal, filed by respondent No. 1-landlord and reversing the order, dated 29.11.2004, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh.2. The landlord-respondent No. 1 is admittedly owner of shop-cum-office No. 284, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh, and in possession of the first and second floors of the building. The rear portion on the ground floor is occupied by the petitioner as a tenant initially @ Rs. 600/- per month and eventually increased to Rs. 1,300/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. The landlord filed a petition for ejectment on the grounds that the petitioner had sublet the premises to respondent No. 2 for running an STD booth, without any authority from the landlord, the petitioner had made alterations in the premises, which had materially impaired the value and utility of the building, and that the landlor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2008P& H144; IV(2008)BC179; (2008)2PLR765
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.1. Defendants No. 1, 4, 5 and 6 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court dated 29.3.1985 vide which the plaintiff has been granted decree for the recovery of Rs. 20,000/- with costs throughout against defendants No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 with a condition that the decretal amount shall be paid within one year failing which, the property mentioned in agreement Mark A shall be put to sale.2. Plaintiff Girdhari Lal had filed the present suit on 4.1.982 seeking a decree for specific performance of the agreement, alleged have been entered into by Khushi Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants/appellants on 22.11.1963 to sell 1/6th share out of land measuring 107 Kanals 13 Marias situated in village Bharth, which comes to approximately 18 Kanals and a house marked as ABCD fully detailed in site plan situated in village Bharth as Khushi Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-appellants had received Rs. 20,000/- from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2008P& H198; (2008)151PLR385
Vijender Jain, C.J.1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 6.12.2006 passed by the learned single Judge in CWP No. 12591 of 2006 vide which the claim of the appellants-petitioners to M.D. Homeopathy Course for the academic session 2006-07 as an external candidate was rejected, despite higher merit, on the ground that they were not eligible as they did not possess the certificate of Compulsory Rotatry Internship.2. Broadly the facts of the case are that the appellants-petitioners, two in number acquired Diploma in Homeopathic Medicine & Surgery (DHMS) much prior to 1983. Till 1983 there was no requirement or availability of Compulsory Rotatry Internship after obtaining the diploma in Homeopathy. Both the appellants joined government service and have to their credit professional experience of more than 30 years as practising Homeopaths.3. Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 issued an advertisement for admission to M.D. (Homeopathic) course for the academic sess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)151PLR319
Ranjit Singh, J.1. Petitioner Smt. Lalita Gupta, tenant in House No. 3208, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh, has filed this revision petition impugning the orders of her eviction as passed by the Appellate Court up-setting the view of the Rent Controller declining the prayer of the respondent for eviction of the petitioner. Respondent Mahesh Kumar Gupta is an Advocate and has filed this petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act seeking eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent and that he required the same for his bonafide personal use and occupation. The respondent, who is a practicing Advocate at Chandigarh and living on the ground floor of House No. 3356, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh with his father has sought eviction of the petitioner pleading that he needs the house for his personal use. The eight marlas house where he is presently staying as a licencee of his father, statedly is having insufficient accommodation for him and his family. Therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)152PLR273
Ranjit Singh, J.1. The order impugned in the present revision petition is the one whereby prayer for amendment of the pleadings made by respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC stands allowed.2. Respondent Dewan Chand and Anr. filed a petition under Section 13(3)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for eviction of tenant from their shop on the ground of bona fide necessity. The case set up by the petitioner was that husband and wife needed this shop for running their own business. On the basis of the pleadings, one of the issue that was framed was:whether the petitioners require the demised shop for their use and occupation for business? OPAThis petition was instituted on 3.2.2000. In January, 2007 the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed seeking amendment to the effect that youngest son of the petitioners, namely, Jaspal was an employee of M/s Khahna Book Depot and has started his business as a book seller and stationery after taking a shop on rent from o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)151PLR388
Ranjit Singh, J.1. The landlord and tenant, distantly related to each other, are in second round of litigation before this Court. They are contesting over a tenancy of a piece of land measuring 80 x 25 yards. It may not be very convenient to notice that the rent application is of 1978 and was decided on 26.7.1985 by the Rent Controller, Amritsar. In the present revision, the status of the parties has reversed. The finding of the Rent Controller in favour of the present respondent was. reversed by the Appellate Authority on 2.5.1986, which he impugned by filing Civil Revision No. 2459 of 1986. The said revision petition was partly allowed by this Court on 4.8.2004, restoring the finding of the Rent Controller on issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 by holding that relationship of a landlord and tenant between the parties was not proved on record and the finding of a Rent Controller on these issues had been wrongly reversed by the lower Appellate Authority. Since issue No. 6 concerning the ejectment of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)151PLR534
Sham Sunder, J.1. This Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, for the release of detenu Sarabjeet Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh, petitioner, and Akashdeep Singh, his son, from the illegal custody of respondent No. 3, has been filed by him (petitioner).2. According to the averments, contained in the petition, the petitioner and Sarabjit Kaur went to Chhattisgarh, where they performed their marriage in Arya Samaj, Kashi Nagar. Both of them were living happily. From their wedlock, one male child was born. It was stated that thereafter the parties approached the Collector/Marriage Officer, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) for registration of their marriage. The marriage of the petitioner and the detenu was registered. Copy of the marriage certificate is Annexure P-2. It was further stated that the mother of Sarabjit Kaur, detenu lodged FIR No. 40 dated 27.2.2006, in Police Station Valtoha, under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)151PLR552
Ranjit Singh, J.1. A contest between trustees of a private Trust formed to run an Educational Institute has reached the High Court second time. Means to control this institute and thus the finances which are generated, seem to be the real aim behind this contest, rather than any aim for doing any welfare, which was the stated aim of the Trust when formulated.2. Respondent No. 1, who claims himself to be the life President of the Trust and thus not removable, filed a civil suit for declaration to this effect, besides other relief. Prayer is also made for declaring some meetings held by the defendants in the suit to be null and void and for declaration that the trust deed, which was amended, be declared as not legally enforceable and valid document. He has also challenged the election purported to have been held on 21.5.2007 of the office bearers of the Trust as well as Shri Krishna Polytechnic Kuruksheta to be null and void and not enforceable.3. Petitioner filed an application under Se...
Tag this Judgment!