Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-24-2006
Reported in : (2006)142PLR730
..... the building was let out in the year 1981 and that now the same is required in view of changed circumstances. the language used in sub-section (3) of section 13 of the act is not to be used mechanically. it is required to be examined whether the landlady has complied with the preconditions in substance rather than in form ..... married and has lot of responsibilities to discharge.6. it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that such pleadings do not satisfy the provisions of section 13(3) of the act which consists of three necessary ingredients i.e. (i) the landlord requires it for his own use; (ii) the landlord is not occupying in the ..... non-residential building after the substitution of definition of non-residential building in section 2(d) of the act vide east punjab urban rent restriction (chandigarh amendment) act, 1982 w.e.f. 21.8.1982. by virtue of section 4 of the amending act, the provisions of the act were made applicable in relation to every case for eviction of a tenant .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-24-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR6
..... would mean the property which was the subject-matter of the previous decree. the plaintiffs were made liable to pay court fee in terms of the provisions of section 7(v) of the act.11. shamsher singh v. rajinder prashad and ors. : [1974]1scr322 was a case where a suit by a hindu son against his father and the mortgagee decree holder ..... value of the relief as fixed and stated by the plaintiff. it may be noticed that the said judgment was prior to insertion of second proviso to sub-section 7(iv) of the act. it was held therein to the following effect:shrimati sita bai is in possession of the land as the result of an auction held in execution of a ..... that the remedy of possession is essentially a consequential relief flowing from and arising of the declaration sought by the plaintiff. it was held to the following effect:section 7(iv)(c) of the act is applicable to a case where a declaration is sought and as a consequential relief some other relief is also prayed for. the case directly on the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-24-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR103
..... was living with his daughter and son-in-law at shimla. it is also mentioned that the applicant has instructed his counsel to file an application under section 8 of the pepsu tenancy act for possession of the disputed land before the death of his father in accordance with jamabandi entries as the applicant is a small land-owner and requires the ..... applicant's father's death in accordance with the jamabandi entries, the applicant had instructed his counsel shri s.n. khosla, advocate, patiala, to file an application under section 8 of the pepsu tenancy act for possession of the disputed land bearing khasra nos. 8/16, 25, 9/11, 12/1, 19/2/20, 21. 17/1 and 18/5 situated in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-24-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR50
Hemant Gupta, J.1. The plaintiff is in revision petition against the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 21.11.2003 whereby Vaibhav Gandotra was ordered to be impieaded as a defendant.2. The defendant has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 28.8.2006 allegedly cxecuted by defandent No. 1 Naresh Kumar. In the said suit, san applicatition was filed alleging therein by Vaidhav Gandotra that he is a co-parcener with Naresh Kumar defandent No. 1 and, therefore, his father has not right to enter into an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. This, it is alleged that he is a necessary party in the persent suit. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court.3. The applicant as a co-parcener has no right to challenge the execution of agreement to sell. The right, if any would arise only on completion of sale on the ground permissible in law. He cannot seek any restraint order against the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family to exccute any sale in fav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-24-2006
Reported in : III(2006)ACC887; 2007ACJ1265; (2006)143PLR38
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.1. The aforesaid 16 petitions have been filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, Rajpura, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 24.1.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal), dismissing its execution applications, which were filed on the strength of the order dated 7.5.2002 passed by this Court in F.A.O. No. 422 of 2000 filed by the petitioner Company.2. In these cases, an accident took place on 6.4.1994 between two buses bearing registration No. PAB-8655 owned by M/s Gian Bus Service and PB-12-2258 owned by M/s Akal Bus Service. In the accident, some persons died at the spot and some were injured. In that appeal, 25 claim petitions were filed in the Court of the Tribunal. The bus bearing registration No. PAB-8655 was insured with the petitioner Company and bus bearing registration No. PB-12-2258 was insured with the Oriental Assurance Company Lim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-25-2006
Reported in : (2006)142PLR817
..... october 22, 1991 has dismissed the application filed by the tenant. consequently, the tenant/petitioner had approached this court through the present revision petition filed under section 15(5) of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949.8. i have heard shri r.k. battas, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner and shri sahil sharma, learned counsel appearing for ..... the locality where the two shops in possession of the tenant were situated. there was, however, no report with regard to service upon the tenant by way of registered cover. acting upon the aforesaid report of the process server alone, the tenant was directed to be proceeded against ex parte by the rent controller. ex-pane evidence of the landlord was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-25-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR35
..... . the hon'ble supreme court had the occasion to consider the question of limitation in making an application for filing of the award in terms of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the arbitration act, 1940 in binod bihari singh v. union of india (1993) supreme court cases 572. in the said case, the award was made on february 2, 1965. ..... . in the said case, apart from other arguments it was argued that the application has been made for making the award as rule of the court under section 17 of the arbitration act. the division bench of patna high court found that there was no implied authority from the arbitrator given to the applicant to file the same to make it ..... in respect of an application for filing of award.4. however, i am unable to accept the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. section 14(1) of the arbitration act, 1940 contemplates that when the arbitrators have made their award they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-25-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR106
..... trial court that the objections filed by the respondent were beyond the limitation prescribed, is not sustainable in law.7. the petitioner herein filed a petition under section 17 of the indian arbitration act, 1940. during the pendency of the said petition, the award announced by the arbitrator was received. on 10.6.1995, the trial court passed an order ..... court shall...proceed to pronounce judgment....'. therefore, it cannot be stated that in case where objections under section 30 of 33 are not filed the court is bound to pass decree in terms of the award.11. in view of the above, it is apparent that even ..... ) the award is so indefinite as to be incapable of execution; or (iv) is on the face of it illegal. this is also provided under parenthesis clause of section 17 which provides 'where the court sees no cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-25-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR182
..... upon selection by public service commission, aided by experts in the field, within the framework of regulations framed by the medical council of india under section 33 of the indian medical council act, 1956, and approved by the government of india on june 5, 1971. when selection is made by the commission aided and advised by experts ..... needed for the post appropriately. but, on the qualifications as they stand today, the petitioner is not eligible to the post and cannot legitimately complain against his non-section.9. in view of the above, we are of the opinion that it would be dangerous for the court to embark upon a discussion as to whether a ..... enforcing the rule of law, should give due weight to the opinions expressed by the experts and also show due regard to its recommendations on which the state government acted. if the recommendations made by the body of experts, keeping in view the relevant rules and regulations, manifest due consideration of all the relevant factors, the court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-25-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR388
..... through its counsel shri randeep singh surjewala. there was delay of 11 days in filing the review application, which led to the filing of another application under section 5 of the limitation act, 1963 read with section 151 of the code, seeking condonation of delay. in the aforementioned application issues were framed but no evidence was jed. eventually another application for issuance of ..... . ashwani kumar : [1997]2scr1143 . the aforementioned application was allowed and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.9.1997 (p-2). subsequently, an application under section 114 read with order lvii rule 1 and section 151 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the code') for review of the order dated 26.9.1997, was filed by the petitioner .....
Tag this Judgment!