Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-12-2014
CWP No.2632 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2632 of 2014 Date of decision: 12.02.2014 Smt. Kamlesh Kumari ...Petitioner(s) Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 05.07.2013 (Annexure P-1).whereby, the Labour Court, Panipat has declined the reference of the petitioner-worklady on the ground that she had left her service out of her own sweet will and did not report for duty despite issuance of several letteRs.Accordingly, it was held that the management has been able to prove that the worklady had remained absent from duty and left the job on her own will. A perusal of the award would go on to show that the grievance of the petitioner-worklady was that she had joined duty as Operator Assembly on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-12-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.3461 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision:12.3.2014 Ramesh Lal @ Ramesh Kumar & anr......Appellant(s) Versus Parmeshwari Devi & ors......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondents No.1,2 & 2A. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) Defendants No.2 and 3 are in appeal before this Court against the judgments and decrees dated 19.3.2009 of the trial Court as well as dated 18.9.2009 of the FiRs.Appellate Court whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondents for declaration was decreed. During the pendency of this appeal, the respondents vide CM No.10844-C of 2013 have placed on record a compromise dated 10.4.2013 effected between the parties as well as an affidavit of appellant No.2-Vijay Kumar dated 10.4.2013 showing that a compromise has been effected between the parties and as per the aforesaid compromise, the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-16-2014
Satyawan IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT201407.30 16:47 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" CHANDIGARH High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-770-DB-2002 Date of Decision :16. 07.2014 Sunil Kumar @ Sonu .......... Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent ***** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH Present : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.S. Chatrath, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Addl. A.G., Punjab. **** 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.Sunil Kumar @ Sonu has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.09.2002, passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby he has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short 'IPC') for committing the murder of Gulzari Lal and sentence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-04-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2717 of 2014 Date of Decision : 4.8.2014 Ambika and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER ...Present: Mr.Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab....MAHESH GROVER.J.The petitioneRs.grievance is that they were appointed as ETT Teachers in the Zila Parishad and are now absorbed in the Education Department even though a grievance has been made that a pick and choose policy has been followed but the issue of seniority has been raised. The petitioners were appointed in the district cadre which prohibited a transfer outside the district except in the case of matrimony necessitating facilitation of getting the married couple posted at one station. In this regard an option was to be exercised by the affected employee and in terms of Annexure P-5, the relevant part of which is extracted herebelow, the seniority was to be p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-06-2014
CRA-S-1196-SB-2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1196-SB-2003 Date of Decision:06. 08.2014 Harbhajan Singh ......Appellant Vs. State of Punjab .........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN Present: Mr. H.R. Nohria, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Shivali, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J.(ORAL) Bhag Singh, along with his father, Mohinder Singh and two sons Harbhajan Singh and Avtar Singh, was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 307/326/324/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court, Ferozepur (for short 'the trial Court') Bhag Singh died during the pendency of trial. Vide judgment/order dated 21.04.2003, learned trial Court acquitted Avtar Singh as prosecution could not fix his guilt beyond reasonable doubt but Mohinder Singh was convicted under Section 323, IPC, and was released on p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-14-2014
CWP No.8980 of 2014(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8980 of 2014(O&M) Date of Decision : 14.08.2014 Harjinder Singh and others ......Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for the petitioners Ms.Monica Chibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioners impugn public notice (Annexure P-15).Similar notice was challenged before this Court in CWP No.1572 of 2013 where similarly situated persons as the petitioners who were selected pursuant to selection process in the year 2008 put it to question. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:- Directions are issued to the respondents to issue a public notice calling for applications from interested candidates possessing higher qualifications of B.P.E/ B.P.Ed/ D.P.Ed/ M.P.Ed prior to 29.04.2008 within a period of 30 days from the date of such publication of the not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-16-2014
CR No.7243 of 2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (106) CR No.7243 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.01.2014 Rajinder Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Diwan Chand and others .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Respondent No.1 had filed ejectment petition against Suraj Bhan (deceased) through his legal representatives with regard to the shop in question on the ground of personal necessity and arrears of rent under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'Act').Case of respondent No.1, in brief, was that respondent No.1 and his nephew Eric Lal were owners of the property in question. The property in question was let out on rent to Suraj Bhan for running a barber shop at a monthly rent of ` 33.50 ps. and house tax @ ` 60/- per year. After the death of Suraj Bhan, his legal heirs came in possession of the shop. However, the tenant was Sandee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-28-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7282-2010 (O&M) Date of decision:-28.05.2014 Paramjit Kumar Saroya ...Petitioner Versus The Union of India and another ...Respondents CWP-12340-2010 (O&M) Amanpreet and another ...Petitioners Versus The Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate (Amicus Curiae). Mr. O.S. Batalvi, Central Government Standing Counsel, for respondent No.1 Union of India. Mr. Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.2. **** SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C.J.(ORAL) The changing norms of a society raise various problems. Our society, possibly more in the urban areas, is today faced with the ground reality of a unitary family, rather than a joint family where different generations live together. There are various causes for this easier movement for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-03-2014
CWP No.19704 of 2003 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19704 of 2003 (O & M) Reserved on: 21.05.2014 Date of decision: 03.07.2014 Rati Ram and others ...Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Gaurav Singh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for respondents No.6 to 8. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?. 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. The present judgment shall dispose of 3 writ petitions i.e.CWP Nos.19704 of 2003, Rati Ram and others versus State of Haryana and otheRs.CWP No.13621 of 2004, Jaipal Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others and CWP No.19691 of 2005, Nepal Singh and others versus State of Haryana and otheRs.since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. The facts are being taken from CWP Nos.19704 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-11-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10112 of 2014 Date of Decision :11.7. 2014 Charanjot Singh ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents ..CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ..Present : Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for the petitioner..RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J (Oral) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the grievance of the petitioner was not being redressed, he finally approached the respondent authorities by way of his representation dated 12.02.2014 (Annexure P-7).but the same is also pending decision. He further submits that the petitioner will be satisfied, in case respondent no.1 is directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner, within a reasona...
Tag this Judgment!