1
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)141PLR610
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing resolution dated 12.12.2003 passed by the Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited (for brevity, 'Markfed'), inter alia, authorising Chairman of Markfed either to represent himself or to nominate the Managing Director, Markfed or any other Director on any of the State/National level institutions. In this regard, agenda item No. 3 in the meeting held on 12.12.2003 has been approved. The principal ground for challenging the resolution dated 12.12.2003 is that the petitioner, who was earlier Chairman of Markfed, was authorised to represent Markfed for his whole tenure of five years and it was not confined to just one meeting of the State National level institutions. In that regard, primary reliance has been placed on Bye-law 23(g)(as amended in pursuance to power conferred by Section 10-A of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961) (for bre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : I(2006)DMC71
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 259-SB and 572-SB of 1995 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.4.1995 and 22.4.1995, respectively, passed by Sessions Judge, Rohtak, in case FIR No. 145 dated 23.8.1992 P.S. Beri under Sections 498-A/304-B/201 IPC. Crl. Appeal No. 259-SB of 1995 has been filed by Kaptan @ Hari Kishan, Krishan and Chhotu, who have been convicted under Section 201, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and Crl. Appeal No. 572-SB of 1995 has been filed by Lilu @ Randhir (husband of the deceased), who has been convicted under Sections 498-A; 304-B and 201, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 201, IPC.2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant Lilu @ Randhir was married to Saroj (deceased) in the year 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)141PLR497
Hemant Gupta, J.The primary question which arises for determination in the present writ petition is:-'Whether the allotment of land measuring 2050 sq. yards to respondent No. 4 is out of land meant for 'public space i.e., landscape features, educational, public and community buildings and public amenities' or is a part of a public park and is not available for allotment for a school site.' 2. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 7923 of 1989 titled Sat Pal Verma (died) through his L.Rs. v. Advisor to the Administration and Ors., decided on 3.12.2001, alongwith a bunch of other writ petitions, passed on order that the use of residential/semi-residential premises, shop-cum-flats, shop-cum-offices in Chandigarh, for running of education institutions amounts to misuse and that the Administration should take policy decision in the matter of running of recognised educational institutions in such sites. The Administration was directed to constitute a high powered committe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2006)142PLR339
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.1. The vendee-plaintiffs have filed this appeal to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below whereby their suit and the appeal against the partition of the land ordered by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Guhla, vide order dated 16.7.1975, were dismissed.2. In brief the facts giving rise to this appeal are that defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed an application for partition of the suit land against Smt.Kirpal Kaur (Plaintiff No. 1) and defendant Nos. 6 to 15 in the court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Guhla. In that application Smt. Kirpal Kaur was proceeded against ex parte. The partition was confirmed on 16.6.1975 and the case was fixed for instrument of partition for 16.7.1975. Rai Jasbir Singh, plaintiff No. 2 purchased land measuring 80 Kanals from Smt. Kirpal Kaur (plaintiff No. 1) vide sale deed dated 27.5.1975 during the pendency of the partition proceedings and plaintiff No. 2 and 3, i.e., Rai Jasbir Singh and Swaran Singh we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)141PLR529
M.M. Kumar, J. 1. This is defendant'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 defendant-appellant No. 1 Rupinder Singh had entered into an agreement to sell the suit land for Rs. 91,000/- and had received Rs. 20,000/- in cash on 20.1.1994. It has further been found that the sale-deed was to be executed by 1.3.1994.2. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit initially for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from alienating the suit land to any other person. When the defendant-appellant No. 1 alienated the suit property to defendant-respondent No. 2 and the cause of action for claiming specific performance had also arisen after 1.3.1004 then the plaintiff respondent got amended his suit and converted the same for specific performance of the contract. The plaintiff-respondent has been found to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. As...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)141PLR221
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This is tenant's petition filed under Sub-section (8) of Section 18 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenging ejectment order dated 24.12005 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar. The Rent Controller has allowed the ejectment application of the landlord-respondents filed under Section 13-A of the Act and has ordered ejectment of the tenant-petitioners on the ground that the landlord- respondent is a specified landlord and need to occupy the demised premises for his own use and occupation.2. Landlord-respondents 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act on 3.2.2004 claiming that Dr. K.K. Sanin applicant-respondent I was owner of the demised premises bearing No. 14, Model Town, Amritsar. It was claimed that he is a specified landlord as he has been working as Director Medical with Directorate General, New Delhi and was (o retire on 31.12.2004. The landlord-respondents also claimed that accommodation was in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : IV(2005)BC359; [2005]126CompCas554(P& H); (2005)140PLR462
M.M. Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of numerous applications filed in C.P. No. 226 of 1999 which include CA 650 of 2004, 18, 28, 72, 94, 185 and 228 and 2.005. All these applications have been filed in respect of confirmation, higher bid and other related issues connected with the sale of assets of the company in liquidation, namely, the Punjab Wireless Systems Limited (for brevity. 'PUNWIRE').2. The background facts are necessary to provide proper perspective and focus to the controversy raised in these applications. The company in liquidation, namely, PUN-WIRE had been running into rough weather which resulted in filing a winding up petition in this Court being C.P. No. 226 of 1999 under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The aforementioned petition was allowed on 1.2.2001 and the Official Liquidator was appointed the liquidator. It is pertinent to mention that before passing order dated 1.2.2001 for winding up the PUNWIRE finally, this Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR557
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari declaring the sanction of prosecution against the petitioner to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing F.I.R. No. 99 dated 15.4.1977 registered at Police Station City District Hoshiarpur under Section 5(2), 47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the I.P.C. The petition was filed on June 16, 1988. Notice of motion was issued on 20.6.1988 for 7.11.88. Further proceedings in the matter were stayed till further orders. On 13.2.1989, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petition was admitted. The interim order was directed to be continued subject to the respondents' right to file a petition for vacation of the same. In April, 1990, C.M. No. 4606 of 1990 was filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR570
Viney Mittal, J.1. Landlady, Kala Wati has approached this Court through the present petition. She has challenged the order dated September 16,1987, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala whereby on an appeal filed by tenant, Ram Piari, the ejectment order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala was set aside and consequently the ejectment petition filed by the landlady was dismissed.2. Landlady, Ram Piari, filed an ejectment petition against tenants, Kala Wati and others. The ejectment of the tenants was sought on the grounds of non-payment of the arrears of rent; the tenants having caused material additions and alterations in the structure without the written consent of the landlady; the tenants having changed the user of the part of a premises and having started running a shop of electrical goods, repair of tyres and tubes; the premises being required for personal use and occupation of the landlady and her family members. The ejectment petition was contested by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR369
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. The petitioner was driving a truck belonging to the SYL Mech. Sub Division, Kurukshetra, Haryana when it met with a road accident on 25.9.1983 at about 8 p.m. As a result of which, one person died. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 304-A read with Section 279 of the IPC. However, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased was also dismissed, However, the claimants filed 1st Appeal against the order in this Court. The appeal was allowed. It was held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, Jaswant Singh, the petitioner. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,960/- was directed to be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The aforesaid order was passed on 5.3.1997. Consequently, the respondents paid the entire amount to the claimants. However, by letter (Annexure P-2) dated 22.8.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Exec...
Tag this Judgment!