Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash a letter dated 13/16.08.2010 by which the allotment of a Group Housing Site No.11, Bawal, Haryana, has been withdrawn and the petitioners have been directed to pay Rs.5,760/- per square metre for re-allotment of the same plot. The petitioners have also challenged an order dated 16.01.2015 dismissing their appeal. 2. The petitioners were allotted an industrial plot and a plot for group housing. We will first refer to the facts relating to the industrial plot. 3. In the year 2006, the petitioners were allotted Industrial Plot No.180-T in Sector 3, Bawal, Haryana. The project report submitted by the petitioners indicated an employment potential of 37 persons. The manpower indicated consisted of 4 Production Supervisors, 20 skilled workers and 10 Helpers to operate the machines and office staff comprising of one Marketing Executive, one Accountant and one Peon-cum-Chowkidar. The production capacity indicated was of different types and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by Sanjeev Kumar, accused petitioner, challenging his conviction and sentence vide judgment/order dated November 14, 2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Khanna as well as judgment dated August 4, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, rendered in case bearing FIR No.73 dated April 27, 2005 under Section 382/34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Khanna. 2. Briefly stated, on April 27, 2005 at G.T. Road, Khanna, Rajiv Sabharwal (complainant) got recorded his statement with the police wherein he stated that he is doing a shop of spare parts at Friends Colony, Khanna. At 9.00 PM, he was present at his shop and received a telephone call (Phone No.224756) installed in his shop, from a person. The said person disclosed that he is speaking from Amloh and his car is met with an accident and he has to purchase spare parts. The complainant replied that he is going to market and asked the caller to contact him after...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 03.10.2006 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby, the appeal against judgment of conviction recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar, was dismissed regarding offence under Sections 279, 304-A and 338 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Learned trial Court held revisionist Baljeet guilty for the offence under Section 337 IPC as well but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, acquitted the revisionist for the aforesaid offence for the reason that he was not chargesheeted for the same. The learned trial Magistrate vide order of sentence dated 17.05.2002 sentenced the revisionist to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC; to undergo RI for a period of 4 months and a fine of Rs. 300/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 337 IPC; to undergo RI for a period of 1 year and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Before adverting to the submissions and counter submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the parties, it would be apt to give a brief preface of the admitted facts. A development agreement dated 2.3.2007 was entered into between the appellant-Chandigarh Administration (hereinafter called CA ) and respondent-M/s Parsvnath Film City Limited (hereinafter called the Developer ). The aforementioned agreement was entered/executed for a period of 99 years and the lessee was granted liberty to set up Film City, Multimedia Park, Multimedia College and Research Centre and Multimedia Entertainment Centre. The completion date of the scheduled project was 36 months or such extended date as agreed by the CA starting from the date of agreement, excluding any such period of delay attributable after payment of the entire bid price by the Developer and in actually handing over the leasehold land to the Developer. As per Article 2 of the agreement, if any of the conditions precedent have not been fu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
The petitioner is a prosecution witness in case FIR No.456 dated 17.12.2014, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Ambala City. The trial of the case is being conducted before the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala. On 18.04.2015, the petitioner went to the Court to give his statement as prosecution witness. He being an Amritdhari Sikh was bearing a Kripan on his person. Ld. Sessions Judge, Ambala objected to the same and directed him to remove the Kirpan in case, he wanted to appear as a witness. When the petitioner refused to do so on the plea of his religious freedom, Ld. Sessions Judge did not record his statement and directed him to appear in Court without wearing his Kripan. The order of the Ld. Sessions Judge is reproduced as under: Six prosecution witnesses are present. Statements of four of them namely Constable Parveen Kumar, Jaswinder Pal Singh, Darshan Singh and Constable Pardeep Kumar recorded. Another present PW is Constable Jasbir Singh. Learned Public Prosecutor submits tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. Petitioners seek quashing of the last cut-off date stipulated in the public notice dated 09.11.2015 (Annexure P4), for receipt of on-line applications for 3522 posts of ETT Teachers in the State of Punjab. Prayer is made on the strength of the fact that the Teachers Eligibility Test had not been conducted within a period of 1 year and therefore, the test which was to be held on 13.12.2015 would enable several candidates to become eligible and allow them to participate in the selection process. As per the said advertisement, apart from the educational qualifications of Matriculation/10+2 and 2 years' Elementary Teachers Training Course, the mandatory requirement was that the candidate should have passed the PSTET-I, conducted by the State Government, under the Right to Education Act, 2010. The cut off date was fixed as 02.12.2015. Relevant portion of the educational qualifications requirement are as under: 2. Educational Qualifications. i) Matric/10+2 ii) Training/Elementary Teachers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. This common order shall dispose of both the aforesaid two petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.PC as they emerge out of the criminal trial in case FIR No.184 dated 18.07.2012 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307, 436, 323, 332, 353, 427, 114 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Manesar, District Gurgaon. In CRM-M No.482 of 2016 titled as Ram Mehar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, 12 accused persons have laid challenge to the order dated 16.12.2015 Annexure P-1 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon-trial Court whereby their application under Section 311 read with Section 231(2) Cr.PC for recalling of the 08 named witnesses has been declined. In CRM-M No.484 of 2016 titled as Krishan Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, 09 accused have laid challenge to the order dated 16.12.2015 Annexure P-1 passed by the learned Additonal Sessions Judge, Gurgaon-trial Court whereby their application under Section 311 read with Section 23...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
The petitioners seek steps for resolving the controversy regarding two different sets of question papers of paper II (Set 1) of the Punjab State Teachers Eligibility Test, 2015 (in short 'PSTET-2015') held on 13.12.2015. Resultantly, they pray for the issuance of grace marks/additional marks for various questions by examination of the anomalies in the question paper. Reliance is placed upon the representation dated 15.12.2015 submitted to the Education Minister, Punjab alongwith copies to the concerned officials. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that they had sat in the PSTET-2015 on 13.12.2015 in the examination center in Bhai Gurdas Institute of Engineering end Technology, Sangrur. After examination, the petitioners were shocked to note that the question paper given to them was different from the question paper given to the other candidates and there was a mistake in the answer keys. Respondent no. 3-Board had uploaded a different answer key on its website with regard to the se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
This petition has been filed praying for quashing the impugned order dated 04.01.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force - respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner for extra-ordinary pension on account of the death of her husband, has been declined. Rohtash Singh, husband of the petitioner had joined the Central Reserve Police Force on 30.8.1980. He was promoted to the post of head Constable/G.D. and posted in 55 Bn. Central Reserve Police Force, West Tripura. Vide order dated 17.8.2001, he was transferred to C.T.E. III, CRPF Mudhkhed (Nanded) in Maharashtra. He departed on 18.8.2001 to join the duty at Mudhkhed (Annexure P-1). It is pleaded in the petition that at that time, he was having cerebral malaria which was common in Tripura due to which he expired on 27.8.2001 at Taneja Hospital, Gurgaon. The respondent authorities were immediately informed through wireless message on 28.8.2001 (Annexure P-2). After the death of Rohtash Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. The Revision Petition is against the orders of the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dated 05.02.2015 whereby on an application under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, the petitioners have been ordered to be detained in civil imprisonment for three months for having failed to comply with the Order of the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi ( CLB ) dated 09.12.2013, insofar as complete records of the company Krishna Real Estate Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. have not been supplied by them to the respondents in pursuance of that order. The petitioners shall be interchangeably referred to defendants, Sayals and judgment-debtors. The respondents shall be referred interchangeably as decree holders and Malhotras. 2. The respondents had filed Company Petition No. 48 (N.D.) of 2012 before the CLB against the petitioner defendants complaining oppression and mismanagement of the affairs of Krishna Real Estate Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., under sections 397, 398, 399, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 195...
Tag this Judgment!