Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-07-2015
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by petitioner-tenant, is to the order dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure P1), whereby the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Gurgaon has dismissed the two applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as the applications had been filed on the ground that the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, had been made applicable to the area where the suit property is situated w.e.f. 02.06.2008 and as such, the same could not effect the litigation already initiated. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mansoor Khan Vs. Moti Ram Harbhajan Kharat AIR 2002 SC 2396. An earlier application had also been dismissed on 05.08.2010 and the proposed amendment in the preliminary objection No.5 could not be allowed as it would lead to framing of a new case and controvert the admission made in para No.6 of the amended written statement. The respondent-landlady filed a civil suit on 25.07.2007 (Annexure P9) for poss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-19-2015
S.J. Vazifdar, A.C.J. 1. The learned single Judge by an order dated 15.07.1988 admitted the petition and ordered it to be placed before the Chief Justice for referring it to a Division Bench. This is how the matter comes before us by way of a reference. 2. The order of reference reads as under :- "One of the contentions raised in this case by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that he having been put into possession as sub-tenant by the tenant without the consent of the landlord, no relationship of landlord and tenant would come into being between them. Reliance for this proposition was placed on Kashmiri Lal and another v. Madan Lal, 1979(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 301 : 1979 P.L.R. 738. I find it difficult to subscribe to the proposition of law enunciated in Kashmiri Lal's case (supra). The subtenant having been put into possession by the tenant without the consent of the landlord would not be a tenant qua the original landlord. For creating a relationship of landlord and tenant between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-20-2015
Amit Rawal, J. 1.By this order, I intend to dispose of three F.A.O. Nos. 1531, 1532 and 1533 of 2010 as the common questions of law and facts involved in all the three appeals are the same. The facts are being taken from FAO No. 1531 of 2010. 2. This is a classical case where the objects and the reasons, preceding the proclamation of Act No. 26 of 1996, which provided that the arbitration procedure should be fair, efficient and the role of the Courts should be minimal in the arbitration proceedings, have been thrown to the wind and is analogous to the procedure being followed in a Civil Court, inasmuch as that the dispute between the parties to the lis has arisen out of execution of an agreement to sell dated 1.10.2002. Thus, in my view, the intention of the Legislature in its wisdom, though had proclaimed vide Act No. 26 of 1996, minimising the role of the Court and as well as expeditious disposal/resolution of the disputes through arbitration, has not been achieved. In order to appre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-04-2015
Rajiv Narain Raina, J. 1. Heard Ms. Abha Rathore for the management and Mr. Deepak Sonak appearing for the caveator-respondent No.2. 2. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned award cannot be maintained either in law or in the facts available on record. Ref. No.R/234 of 2009 was made to the Labour Court-III, Faridabad to test the validity of the termination of the services of the claimant-workman and whether his transfer was illegal or not. The Labour Court has answered the reference in favour of the claimant holding that the order of transfer was vitiated by colourable exercise of employer's right to transfer the employee and has thus awarded reinstatement to service with continuity and full back wages. Costs of Rs.5100/- has been assessed by the impugned award dated August 31, 2015. 3. A few of the relevant facts may be noticed in order to appreciate the work of the learned Labour Court and whether its conclusions are in order and in a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-08-2015
Rajiv Narain Raina, J. (Oral): 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was dismissed from service after holding an ex-parte inquiry behind his back without notice of the proceedings. The factory run by the management where the petitioner worked was located in Maruti Industrial Complex, Gurgaon. The charge was of absence from duty for 13 days at a stretch. The management did not take action under Model Standing Orders to terminate the services of the petitioner but instead ordered an inquiry into the alleged misconduct. 3. The Labour Court vide an interim order passed in 2009 held on the preliminary objection that the inquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper and procedurally correct in its conduct. The court a quo then proceeded to decide the main case on merits and made the award which is impugned by the workman in the present petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 4. On merits, the Labour Court-I, Gurgaon has upheld the ter...
Tag this Judgment!