Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2009(104)FLR1174]; (2005)ILLJ1037P& H; (2005)139PLR176
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. Hoping for a change in the attitude of the concerned officers of the State of Punjab, on 17.9.2004, when this matter came up for motion hearing, we passed the following order:-'Mr. Behl has very fairly stated that the respondents have already lost the matter up to the Supreme Court. He, however, states that an application for review has been filed in the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 4792 of 2003 decided on May 6, 2003.The petitioner was appointed as Peon on June 6, 1997. His services were abruptly terminated on 23.7.1999. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated by the Labour Court on 21.5.2002. This award was challenged by the State of Punjab in CWP No. 4792 of 2003, which was dismissed by this Court on May 6, 2003. Not being satisfied, the State of Punjab filed SLP in the Supreme Court which has been dismissed on 31.1.2004. In such circumstances, we are of the prima facie view that the attitude adopted by the State of Punjab, in the present case, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2005P& H94; (2004)138PLR803
Hemant Gupta, J.1. The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court whereby suit for declaration and for permanent injunction was dismissed in appeal.2. The plaintiffs have sough declaration inter-alia on the ground that they are entered as mortgagees with possession with respect to the agricultural land measuring 28 Kanals 13 Marias as detailed in the plaint. An area measuring 14 kanals 15 marlas, i.e. 2338/4516th share in the land measuring 27 kanals 13 marlas has been auctioned by defendants No.l to 4 in favour of the defendant No. 5 on 16.1.1991. The custodian has wrongly been entered as mortgagors of the said share in the suit land. The plaintiffs are also having some share in the suit land but are recorded as mortgagees of the entire land for times immemorial for the last more than 100 years. Some or the Muslims became evacuees and the share of the said co-sharers came to vest in the custodian and the said share is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2004CriLJ4682
ORDERRajive Bhalla, J. 1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 114, dated 21-6-2003, under Sections 409/483/218 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Sector 19, Panchkula.2. A brief narrative of the facts that have led to the lodging of the present F.I.R. and the detention of the petitioner would be appropriate.3. On 25-5-2001, upon receipt of secret information, one Tajudeen Ahesula, a Nigerian National was apprehended with 30 packets of smack, total weighing 3 kgs. Out of these packets, two were sealed as samples, whereas the remaining 28 were sealed in a separate parcel. Recovery memo, was prepared on the spot and signed by Onkar Singh, ASI Rattan Singh, an independent witness and Sh. Jagparvesh Dahiya, the then DSP, Hqrs.4. The case properly, containing the sealed parcels bearing seal BR, were entrusted to MHC Zile, Singh, Incharge of the Malkhana, Police Station, Sector 19, Panchkula, on 25-5-2001.5. On 29-5-2001, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)139PLR137
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 236 and 1230 of 2002. Facts have been taken from C.R. No. 236 of 2002.2. This petition has been filed against order of the arbitrator dated 2.11.2001 rejecting amendment sought by the petitioners to set up counter claim. The application was admittedly made one and a half years after filing of the original claim/written statement.3. Case of the petitioners is that they entered into an agreement dated 4.10.1995 with the Respondent-Corporation for milling paddy which was to be supplied to the Food Corporation of India or other government agencies. The petitioners were to deliver rice after milling paddy upto 28.2.1996 and in case of shortfall they were to pay 1.5 times the cost of paddy. Milling charges were agreed between the parties. Paddy was entrusted to the petitioners. The petitioners supplied deficient rice and the Corporation made a claim for Rs. 54,43,113/- with interest. The matter was referred to the arbitra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2004CriLJ4704
S.S. Grewal, J. 1. By this common order, four criminal appeals viz. Cri. Appeal Nos. 614-DB of 2000, 653-DB of 2000, 654-DB of 2000 and Cri. Appeal No. 57-DB of 2001, filed by the accused-appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18-10-2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and Cri. Revision No. 221 of 2001 filed by Sadhu Singh, father of the deceased, are being disposed of as these arise out of the same judgment.2. The accused appellants have filed the above mentioned criminal appeals for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18-10-2000 in case FIR No. 49 dated 3-4-1998 registered under Sections 302/402/148/149/120-B, IPC at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar, vide which all the accused-appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each under Section 302/34, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months; to under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2005CriLJ521
V.K. Bali, J.1. Appellant Ranbir alias Billa, caste Harijan, who was 20 years of age at the time of occurrence, has since been held guilty for offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years as also to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, vide order dated 1 -9-1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. In the present appeal, that has been filed by him challenging the order of conviction and sentence, as mentioned above, what has been debated before this Court is that even if, he might have indulged in sexual intercourse with prosecutrix. namely, Rakesh Devi, also a Harijan by caste, the same was with her consent and the prosecutrix being more than 18 years of age, the appellant could not be held guilty for offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code.2. In the context of the only argument, i.e., sexual intercourse wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2005CriLJ84
V.K. Bali, J.1. Appellant Ravinder Kumar, who was tried along with his co-accused Sudhir Kumar and Shanti Devi, has since been held guilty for offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code as also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months, vide order dated 15-4-1993. His co-accused, namely, Sudhir Kumar and Shanti Devi, have, however, been acquitted. Ravinder Kumar, through present appeal filed by him, challenges the order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala.2. The appellant along with his co-accused was tried for the offences, referred to above, on the basis of prosecution version, which was unfolded by Rajinder Nath Bansal, who, in the FIR lodged by him on 8-4-19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2005CriLJ406
ORDERSuryakant, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing/setting aside of the order dated Oct. 9, 2001 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I.. Chandigarh, whereby their application to discharge them in case RC No. 1-2000/SPE-CHD under Section 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the 1988 Act) read with Section 120B, of the Indian Penal Code for want of previous sanction for prosecution, has been dismissed.2. The core question which has arisen for consideration is as to whether prosecution of the petitioners under the aforementioned provisions of the Penal Laws is liable to fall flat due to absence of previous sanction for their prosecution under Section 19 of the Act, 1988 Act?3. The facts relevant to answer the aforesaid issue are that petitioner No. 1 (J.S. Bindra) and petitioner No. 2 (D.B. Malhotra) were working as General Manager and Sales Manager respectively in Mess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2004)138PLR822
Hemant Gupta, J.1. The defendants are in appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 49,997.60P as balance price of the goods sold: Rs. 2000/- towards refund of security, Rs. 7()00/- as interest and Rs. 100/- towards notice and sundry charges.2. The plaintiff is a partnership firm whereas the defendant is a body corporate under the provisions of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiff entered into an agreement duly sealed and signed by the chairman of the Market Committee for the supply of metallic bins which was conveyed to the plaintiff vide letter dated 23.2.1997. Plaintiff delivered goods worth Rs. 3 lacs covered by the said agreement. Vide another agreement dated 31.3.1977 the plaintiff was asked to supply additional metallic bins worth Rs. 50,000/-. The goods were supplied to the defendant and accepted by it. Plaintiff has been paid a sum of Rs. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)139PLR566
Hemant Gupta, J.1. Vide Punjab Government notification dated 10.7.1959, Gurdwara Sahib Patashai Naumi was declared to be Sikh Gurdwara. Vide notification dated 22.3.1960, in terms of the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a consolidated list of rights, title and interest was issued in respect of rights, title and interest vesting with Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar in respect of the said Gurdwara.2. One Mahant Basant Singh made a petition before the State Government and claimed ownership of the properties mentioned in the consolidated list. The same were referred to Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal under Section 14 of the Act. The said petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on 18.12.1962. The Tribunal declared that the Gurdwara Sahib Patashai Naumi entered at No. 343 of Schedule-I annexed to the Act was the owner of the whole land as also of the muafi land, respectively, entered in para 2 and 3 of the consolidated list. Maha...
Tag this Judgment!