Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-10-1990
Reported in : AIR1991P& H54
ORDER1. In this bunch of writ petitions broadly the challenge is to the 64th amendment of the Constitution; imposition of President Rule in Punjab in May, 1987 andextension thereof; dissolution of the Punjab Legislative Assembly in March, 1988.2. Legal issues raised and posed by these writ petitions are not free from difficulty. The importance of the issues raised gave rise to numerous opinions, and approach to them which need balancing by the judicial mind.3. Though there are some differences and variations in facts, still the material facts are largely common to the writ petitions. Various questions raised in the petitions are so interwoven that their answers depend on each other. It can fairly be stated that the petitions raised common questions of law and fact.4. It would be expedient to succinctly collate the facts from Civil Writ Petition No. 2886 of 1989 filed by Captain Kanwaljit Singh, former Minister (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner).5. The petitioner impugned the i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jun-05-1990
Reported in : (1990)98PLR289
Jai Singh Sekhon, J. 1. This order will dispose of civil writ No. 2077 of 1980 directed by Om Parkash owner of godown site No. 180, Grain Market, Chandigarh, against the order of its resumption and writ petition No. 6928 of 1986 preferred by Nohria Ram and another the alleged tenants of a portion the godown site in dispute as the controversy in both these petitions relates to the same premises.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition are that on 6-2-1972. Om Parkash petitioner purchased godown site No 180. Grain Market, Chandigarh, in an open auction for a total price of Rs 85,600/-. Om Parkash paid 25% of the sale consideration. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the sale the balance amount 75% along with interest accruing thereon was to be paid in three equated yearly instalments, the first instalment being payable on 6-2-1973, the second instalment being payable in 6-2-1974 and third instilment on 6-2-1975. The petitioner constructed a building...
Tag this Judgment!