Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2006CriLJ17
Mehtab S. Gill, J.1. This is an appeal against the. judgment/order dated 1-6-2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Faridkot whereby he convicted appellant Bhupinder Singh under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2.000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 2 months. Bhupinder Singh was further convicted under Section 307, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. l.000/-, in default to further undergo RI for one month. Bhupinder Singh was further convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to further undergo R.I. for one month. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Ram Kumar given to ASI Surjit Singh on 9-7-1997 at 9.45 p.m. in the area of Civil Hospital, Baghapu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2006P& H77; (2006)142PLR289
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for brevity 'the Code') challenging the view taken by the learned District Judge, Sangrur, in his judgment and decree dated 5.10.2001 holding that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for specific performance of contract dated 26.10.1994 entered between the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and defendant-appellant alongwith two others deserve to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. It has further held that Shri Om Parkash, defendant-respondent No. 4, who is one of the share holders in the suit property, could not be considered as a lunatic or a person of unsound mind. The learned District Judge has revered the findings recorded by the trial Court in its judgment and decree dated 27.11.1998, whereby the learned trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1.2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 as emerges from the pleadings is that La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2006)142PLR503
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below holding that the Will Ex-D-5 dated 12.6.1982 executed by Harbhajari Singh in favour of the defendant-respondents which is registered document, does not suffer from any legal infirmity and has been duly proved by the defendant-respondents. The findings of the trial court on the question of validity of general power of attorney (Ex-P6=Ex-D1) dated 8.10.1993 holding that it was validly executed has been upheld by the learned lower appellate court. However, the judgment and decree Ex.P3 and P4 suffered by the Power of Attorney in favour of other defendant-respondents have been declared illegal for want of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Registration Act').2. There was one Kharak Singh who had three sons S/Sh. Hari Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Har...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2006)142PLR118
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This is defendants' appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging the view taken by the learned District Judge, Patiala in his judgment and decree dated 3.9.1988 holding that the plaintiff-respondents along with defendant-respondent 6 were entitled to a declaration to the effect that they have become absolute owner of the suit land because the defendant-appellants being the mortgagor had failed to redeem the property mortgaged to them by mortgage deed Ex.P1 in the year 1928. The view taken is that the mortgage deed although is not registered, was. not required to be registered in the year 1928 as the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Registration Act') was applicable to British India alone and it was not applicable to Pepsu. In that regard reliance has been placed on a judgment of Lahore High Court in the case of Maru Singh v. Mohru and Ors., A.I.R. 1929 Lahore 495. The trial Court has dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2006)142PLR348
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions. First writ petition bearing C.W.P. No. 7658 of 2005 has been filed by the Central Academy Educational Progressive Society of India for issuance of directions to respondent Nos.l to 3, namely, National Fertilisers Limited, Noida and its two officers to hand over the school premises owned by the National Fertilisers Limited at Panipat. The aforementioned prayer stems from a lease agreement dated 11.2.2005 (Annexure P-6). The second petition bearing CWP No. 9500 of 2005 has been filed by some students in which the Central Academy Educational Progressive Society of India has been impleaded as respondent No. 4 alongwith the National Fertilisers Limited and its officers. In the latter writ petition, directions have been sought to the respondents to ensure that the petitioners do not miss their studies on the re-opening of the school on 21.6.2005 after the summer vacations. It has further been prayed that the respondent-National...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)141PLR861
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal today at motion stage.2. The petitioner, while working as a Clerk with the respondent-Bank, was arrested in a criminal case on 1.12.1988. He was placed under suspension by order dated 13.12.1988. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted by judgment dated 3.6.1998. On acquittal, the petitioner approached the authorities for reinstatement. He was reinstated on 27.9.1999. However, on the same date, he was served with the charge sheet on the same allegations/The petitioner participated in the department proceedings. The Enquiry Officer found Charge Nos. 1, 4 and 5 not proved. After examining the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the following order on 1.2.2002:-'I have examined the Inquiry Report and other relevant record submitted by the Inquiry Officer. I have noted the facts that the charge of divulging the information by the CSE regarding movement of Bank...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)141PLR486
Viney Mittal, J.1. Through the present petition, an unfortunate attempt has been made by the Haryana Public Service Commission ( hereinafter called the 'Commission') to thwart the efforts made by the State Government to find out as to whether in some of the past selections made by the Commission, its Officers and Officials, its Secretary, its Members and the past Chairman etc. had acted on some extraneous and illegal consideration. The Commission complains that holding of the aforesaid Vigilance inquiries and summoning of the record of the aforesaid previous selections by the Vigilance Department was, in fact, an encroachment upon the independence and the constitutional status of the Commission.2. It has been averred by the Commission that general elections to the State assembly were held in the State of Haryana in February/March, 2005. As a result of the same 'Congress Government' was formed in the State. Although, it has hastened to add that the present Chairman and the members are n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2006P& H39; (2006)142PLR146
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the Will dated 22.10.1986 Ex.D-1 on which reliance has been placed by the defendant-respondents is a genuine document and would constitute the basis to determine the right of the parties. It has further been held that the adoption deed Ex.D-2 dated 5.2.1974 could not be proved by defendant-respondent No. 1 snowing that he was legally adopted by Harnam Kafir his grandmother.2. There was one Harnam Kaur who had two daughters namely, Surjit Kaur and Bal-winder Kaur. The estate of Harnam Kaur is subject-matter of dispute between three sisters and Ors.. Surjit Kaur and Balwinder Kaur, two daughters of Harnam Kaur, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,70,000/- and for possession of the house as per the details given. The amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- was claimed from FDR maintained by Harnam Kaur jointly with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2006)142PLR383
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. The petitioner was sentenced to one year R.I. Plus Rs.300/- as fine and two months Simple Imprisonment in default thereof. Against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed an appeal, before the Appellate Court. At the initial stage itself, the petitioner submitted that a lenient view may be taken. He conceded to the finding of the trial Court in the judgment dated 11.12.2000. As noticed earlier, in the aforesaid judgment, the trial court had held the petitioner guilty under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. Before the appellate court, the petitioner merely sought reduction in the sentence on compassionate grounds. The plea of the petitioner was accepted by the appellate court and he was directed to be granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2006)142PLR393
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This is the plaintiffs appeal challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-appellant has miserably failed to prove that he was ever adopted by Smt. Keshar Devi defendant-respondent No. 1. It is the estate of defendant-respondent No. 1, which is being claimed by the plaintiff-appellant on the basis of adoption. There is no document brought on record to prove the adoption nor there is any collateral evidence proving the fact of adoption of the plaintiff-appellant by Smt. Keshar Devi defendant-respondent No. 1. When she herself appeared in the witness box as DW1, she categorically denied having adopted the plaintiff-appellant. Reliance has also been placed on an earlier suit filed by Diwan Singh, father of the plaintiff-appellant titled as Diwan Singh v. Smt. Santosh, where it has been asserted that he alongwith Sher Singh were the owners in possession of the suit land. Had Diwan Singh given Suraj Mal in adoption to ...
Tag this Judgment!