Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-06-2014
Rs.No.752 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.752 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision:06.08.2014 M/s Doaba Hoteliers PVT.LTD.Jullundur ..Appellant versus Krishna Wati and others ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present : Mr.A.K.Chopra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Harminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.J.S.Gill, Advocate and Mr.Sunil Garg, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?. 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. **** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. Present regular second appeal, at the hands of defendant No.4, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.10.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, whereby judgment and decree dated 5.1.1981 passed by the learned trial Court were set aside, allowing the fiRs.appeal of the plaintiffs and their suit for possession by partition of land, was decreed. Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned District ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-05-2014
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJ.Rs.No.4030 of 2014 1 2014.08.20 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.4030 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:05.08.2014 Director/Director in Charge, Central State Farm Corporation of India Limited and another ...Appellants Versus Chanda and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK1 To be referred to the Reporters or not ?. 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?. Present: Mr.Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate for the appellants. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) Present appeal is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, was partly decreed. Brief facts of the case are that suit was filed by the plaintiffs namely Chanda son of Shri Lekh Ram, Neki son of Shri Ram Chander and Hardev Singh son of Shri Arjun Singh. Since the fiRs.appeal filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-04-2014
CR No.1350 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1350 of 2012 (O&M) Decided on:-August 4th, 2014. Mohinder Singh. Petitioner. Versus Baljit Singh and others Respondents. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON. ***** Argued by:- Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Mathur, Advocate for respondent No.1. Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.A petition for ejectment of the contesting respondent is pending adjudication before the Rent Controller. After conclusion of evidence by the petitioner-landlord, when the petition was pending for recording of evidence by the respondent-landlord, he moved an application for taking specimen samples of the voice of petitioner Mohinder Singh and proforma-respondent Popinder Singh so that their voice could be compared with the voice recorded in the CD on the basis of memory card recorded through mobile phone wherein pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-04-2014
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJ.Rs.No.2649 of 2010 1 2014.08.14 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.2649 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:04.08.2014 Bhuru Ram ...Appellant Versus Dharampal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK1 To be referred to the Reporters or not ?. 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?. Present: Mr.O.P.Goel, Sr.Advocate with Mr.R.S.Mander, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.J.V.Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Haripal Verma, Advocate for respondents No.2(a) to 2(c).RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. Defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact, recorded by both the learned courts below in a suit for specific performance, whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents was decreed. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance, on the allegations tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-31-2014
CWP No.12135 of 2014 & other connected cases -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12135 of 2014 Reserved on:23.07.2014 Date of decision:31.07.2014 Adesh University ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Sr.Advocate with Mr.A.S.Sandhu, Advocate, (for the petitioner in CWP No.12135 of 2014, for respondent 2 in CWP No.12299 of 2014 and for respondent No.3 in CWP No.12484 of 2014). Mr.Rajiv Kataria, Advocate, (for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.12299 & 12484 of 2014). Mr.Deepak Balyan, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Gautam Pathania, Advocate (for respondent No.3 in CWP No.12299 of 2014). Mr.Paramjit Rajput and Mr.Arun Singhal, Advocates (for respondent No.4 in CWP No.12135 of 2014). ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.1. This order shall dispose of three writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.12135, 12299 & 12484 of 2014, involving common questions of law and facts. However, to dictate order, facts have b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-31-2014
Crl. Appeal No.S-1125-SB of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.S-1125-SB of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: 31.7.2014 Jaswinder Singh and another ..........Appellants Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr.SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.D.S.Virk, A.A.G., Punjab. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present appeal has been filed by accused-appellants, namely, Jaswinder Singh and Kulwant Singh against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18/19.4.2007 passed by Special Judge, Ferozepur, whereby, they have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 18 (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years each and to pay a fine of ` 50000/- each with default clause. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 2.1.2001 ASI Baj Singh, Incharge of Police Post Sito Guno along with other police officia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-25-2014
VATAP No.48 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VATAP No.48 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: July 25, 2014 M/s Sonex Auto Industries P Limited, Bahadurgarh (Haryana) Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HONBLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY Present: Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Advocate, Mr. S.K.Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the appellant(s). Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.1. This order shall dispose of VAT Reference Nos.9 and 10 of 2010, VATAP Nos.4, 6, 17 to 19, 27 to 30, 48 to 50, 62 to 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72 to 75, 84 to 86, 103, 109, 112, 113, 124, 125, 140, 141, 142, 147, 181, 185 to 188 of 2012, 5 to 9, 11, 19 to 23, 71, 72, 92, 96 to 98, 100 of 2013 and CWP Nos.15346 of 2011, 8548, 9159, 14394, 14437, 19788, 20682, 20684, 24171 and 25993 of 2013, as according to learned counsel for the part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-24-2014
Civil Writ Petition No.12529 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12529 of 2013 Date of decision : 24.07.2014 Major (Retd.) Charanjit Singh Rai ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr.R.S.Athwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Sanjeev Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** RITU BAHRI , J. The petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the elections conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum- Returning Officer-respondent No.4 on 04.06.2012 for electing ordinary trusties of Montgomery Guru Nanak Educational Trust-respondent No.5 (Anexure P-5) and meeting/resolution dated 04.06.2013 (Annexure P-6).whereby other office bearers of respondent No.5 were elected. The petitioner is one of the founder trustees as well as life trustee of respondent No.5 and has been the Chairman of the trust for the la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-23-2014
CWP No.1153 of 2012 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1153 of 2012 (O & M) Reserved on:- 30.05.2014 Date of decision: 23.07.2014 The Technological Institute of Textile and Science, Bhiwani ...Petitioner(s) Versus Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Labour and Employment Department, Chandigarh and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Anand Chhibber, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Rohit Khanna, Advocate, Mr.Nipun Malhotra, Advocate, and Mr.Saurabh Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate, for respondents No.2, 3, 5 to 7. Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.4. G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby, the Government has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 25-O of the Industrial Dispu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-15-2014
CR No.6534 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6534 of 2013 (O&M) Decided on:-July 15th, 2014. Om Prakash. Petitioner. Versus Mukesh Kumar and another. Respondents. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON. ***** Argued by:- Mr. Pardeep Bhanot, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for the respondents. Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.A petition under Section 13(B) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act) filed for eviction of the tenant on 17.7.2012 by the petitioner-landlord is pending adjudication before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, which is at the initial stage.2. An application for amendment of the petition to introduce one para which allegedly had been wrongly omitted to be mentioned in the petition, already preferred, is sought to be introduced now. The same reads as under: That the petitioner does not own or possess any commercial property in the Urban Area of Chandigarh, or for th...
Tag this Judgment!