Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-18-2013
CWP No.8291 of 1994. 1 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH. *** CWP No.8291 of 1994. Date of decision: September, 2013. *** M/S Nu-Tech Solvex ...Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others. ...Respondents *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON. *** 1. Whether the Judgment be reported?.2. Whether the judgment be shown to the reporter.3. Whether a copy of the judgment be given to the reporter. Present: Shri Rajiv Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rajiv Kwatra, Sr. D.A.G. Haryana, for the Respondents. *** DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, J1 By way of this petition, writ in the nature of certiorari is sought by the petitioner for setting aside order dated 28.4.1994 (Annexure P-7) vide which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and consequently benefit of sales tax exemption under the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules.) was denied to the petitioner. CWP No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-15-2013
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20656 OF 201.:{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 15 2013 Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Science and Research Mullana-Ambala and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?.2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr.Puneet Bali, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Vibhav Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP Nos.20656 of 2011 &7595 of 2012) and for respondent Nos.4 & 5 in CWP No.20659 of 2011. Mr.Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP No.20659 of 2011).Mr.Karminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1-Union of India. Mr.Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.3-State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-17-2013
Crl.Writ Petition No.1930 of 2012 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Writ Petition No.1930 of 2012 (O & M) Date of decision:17.01.2013 Narender @ Neeraj .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM : HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE S.S.SARON HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE S.P.BANGARH Present: Mr.Manot Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.H.S. Deol, Addl. AG, Haryana. S.S.SARON, J. Learned State counsel has filed written statement of Shri Anil Kumar, Superintendent, District Jail, Faridabad. The same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The criminal writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking release of the petitioner for six weeks parole for agricultural purposes. It is submitted that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad for the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC; besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act. He has been se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-22-2013
Criminal Misc. not M-7747 of 2012 ..1.IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. not M-7747 of 2012 Date of Decision:22. d January,2013 Vikas Vector @ Vikas Bector ...Petitioner Versus Harbhajan Singh & Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.Aman Bahri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate, for respondent No.1. *** Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. Prayer in this petition is for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.176 of 2007 dated 17.08.2007, titled as Harbhajan Singh versus Surinder Singh & Others. (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) and the summoning order dated 14.06.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa, District Kurushetra, qua the petitioner-Vikas Vector @ Vikas Bector. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1- complainant had filed the complaint (Annexure P-1) against four per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-24-2013
CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 24, 2013 Sunita Sharma Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by Sunita Sharma- complainant/aggrieved person, challenging the judgment, dated 17.9.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4, challenging their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 452, IPC, was partly allowed with modification of the order of sentence and they were ordered to be released on probation.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Sunita Rani, lodged a report with the allegations t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-24-2013
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. not A-960-MA of 2012 Date of Decision:24. 1.2013 Hardial Singh ..Applicant Versus ASr.Ram alias Ram ASr.and Others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh Present: Mr.Mohinder Kumar, Advocate for the applicant. Jasbir Singh, Judge Respondents No.1 & 2 along with their son, namely Amit Kumar were made to face trial in FIR No.9 dated 15.1.2003, Police Station Beas for commission of offence under Section 304-B/34 IPC. It was an allegation against them that they, in furtherance of their common intention, had caused dowry death of Santosh Kumari alias Anita Kumari on 10.5.2001 by putting her on fire. Amit Kumar, husband of the deceased, died during pendency of the trial. Marriage between Amit Kumar and the deceased was solemnized on 11.10.1999. The trial Judge has noted following facts regarding case of the prosecution: that this case was registered on the directions of Nati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-25-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.3139 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: January 25, 2013 M/s N.K.Electronics .Appellant versus Narinder Kumar .Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.N.Jindal Present: Mr.Sumeet Mahajan, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Amit Kohar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.M.L.Sarin, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Nitin Sarin, Advocate for the respondent. A.N.Jindal, J In a suit instituted at the instance of Narinder Kumar Proprietor of M/s N.K.Sales Corporation (herein referred as, 'the respondent').the defendant M/s N.K.Electronics appellant was proceeded against ex-parte on 10.10.2006 and ex-parte decree was passed on 12.2.2007. According to the appellant he came to knot about the ex-parte decree on receipt of the summons in an execution on 24.7.2007 and he moved an application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings and decree on 22.8.2007. This suit was under the Copy Right and Trade Marks Act pending before the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-28-2013
CWP No.19042 o1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19042 of 2011 Date of decision:28.01.2013 The Friends Co-operative House Building Society (Registered) .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Vijay Pal & Mr.Arvind Seth, Advocates, for the petitioner, Ms.Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1, 2 & 4, Mr.Rishi Tondon, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?. Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Yes **** G.S.Sandhawalia J.1. The question that arises for consideration of this Court, in the present petition is that while granting an order of status quo with respect to possession which was not extended at the time of admission would give petitioner the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-28-2013
Crl.Misc.not M- 27667 of 2012 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.not M- 27667 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:28. 1.2013 Kiranjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Cheema, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Khandebad, DAG, Punjab. Mr.R.K.Handa, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. **** SABINA, J.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.4.2012 (Annexure P-10), whereby the complaint case No.203 dated 5.7.2011 titled as Sandeep Singh vs. Sanjay Chauhan and others was clubbed with the State case and a subsequent order framing charge and formal charge sheet dated 28.4.2012 (Annexure P-11). Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial Court had erred in clubbing the State case with the complaint Crl.M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-31-2013
CWP No.9657 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHAN- DIGARH C.W.P.No.9657 of 2012 Date of Decision:31. 01.2013 State Bank of Patiala .....Petitioner versus The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr.G.S.Anand, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rajneesh Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 2.9.2011 (Annexure P.14) passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal whereby an appeal filed by respondents No.2 to 4 was allowed for the reason that the said respondents are tenant in the property mort- gaged in favour of the Bank and that such tenant cannot be evicted from the premises without due process of law. Subsequently, the Bank filed an application for clarification of the order that the Bank is already in CWP No.9657 of 2012 -2- possess...
Tag this Judgment!