Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-20-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1405 of 2002 (O&M) Judgement Reserved on 13.8.2014. Date of Pronouncement: 20.08.2014. Nabli & others --Appellants Versus Mustaq Ahmed & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. Present:- Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent no.3. *** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J The instant appeal lays a challenge to the order dated 2.11.2001, passed by the M.A.C.T., Gurgaon, whereby the claim petition preferred by the claimants/present appellants, has been dismissed. Brief facts are that the present appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation in the sum of Rs.20 lacs for the death of Yasin in a road traffic accident that was stated to have occurred on 7.8.2000 on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.HR-38-A-4440. It had been pleaded in the claim petition that on 7.8.2000 Yasin along wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-14-2014
CR No.151 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.151 of 2014 Date of Decision:14. 1.2014 Sukhpal Kaur ......Petitioner Versus The Sunderam Colonizers (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Kulbhushan Raheja, Advocate for the petitioner. MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(Oral) Concisely, the facts and material, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that, initially, petitioner-plaintiff Sukhpal Kaur wife of Harnek Singh (for brevity the plaintiff.) has instituted the civil suit for a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant-respondents Sunderam Colonizers Private Limited and others (for short the defendants.) to remove the recently constructed pillars and other constructions from the passage/street. The defendants refuted the claim of plaintiff, filed the written...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-11-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.02.2014 1. Civil Writ Petition No.9823 of 2002 Chidambram and otheRs...Petitioners Versus Union Territory, Chd. and others ..Respondents 2. Civil Writ Petition No.9931 of 2002 Raju ..Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chd. and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present : Mr.Ashok Kumar Nabhewala, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Ms.Liza Gill, Advocate, for U.T.Administration, Chd. In CWP No.9823 of 2002. Ms.Alka Chatrath, Advocate for U.T.Administration, Chd. In CWP No.9931 of 2002. **** SANJAY KISHAN KAUL C.J.(Oral) There are six petitions which raise a common question being the present two petitions and Civil Writ Petitions No.4739, 4799, 4772 and 4773 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!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-04-2014
CWP No.2663 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2663 of 2013 Date of Decision:04.03.2014 Santosh Devi ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Mr.Mukesh Yadav Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Umesh P. Wadhwani, Central Government counsel for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 29.9.2011 whereby, application transferred to the Tribunal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequent application for restoration was also dismissed on the ground of delay in filing such application. The husband of the petitioner was working in Indian Navy and was diagnosed as 'Bronchitis Asthma-allergic Phinities'. He died on 30.7.1985. The claim of the petitioner is that death of the husband of the petitioner is attributable to and aggravated by Naval Service. Earlier petitioner filed civil suit which was dismissed...
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 : Aug-04-2014
Rs.No.1970 of 2012(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.1970 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision: 04.08.2014 Bhinder Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Jagpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?. 2. To be referred to reporters or not?. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. * * * Present: Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant(s).Mr.Harish Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession, of his half share in the suit land, by way of partition as described in the plaint, with a further prayer for restraining the defendant-appellant from alienating the suit land more than his share and by way of specific khaSr.numbeRs.The suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.2010 in the following manner: This suit is coming in this day for...
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 : Feb-17-2014
CRM-M-4266 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-4266 of 2014 Date of Decision: 17.02.2014 Amit ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Nipun Vashist, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajat Mor, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) By way of this petition, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seeks release on bail pending trial in FIR No.272 dated 20.07.2013 recorded at Police Station Badshahpur, District Gurgaon, under Sections 392, 34 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. Notice of motion. On the asking of this Court, Mr.Rajat Mor, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. As agreed by both the learned counsel, the petition is taken on board for final disposal. Heard. As per case of the prosecution, the present petitioner, along with his co-accused Naval and Dushy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-15-2014
CWP No.5414 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5414 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision:15.7.2014 Gajraj Singh .Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Mr.R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.R.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Karminder Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. **** HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral) The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional Bench at Chandimandir (for short the Tribunal) on 09.05.2011 whereby a Civil Suit filed by the petitioner before the Civil Judge (Junior Division).Rewari, transferred to the Tribunal, was dismissed. The petitioner served in Indian Navy from 21.07.1959 to 12.07.1971 and was placed in Indian Navy Fleet Reserve w.e.f.17.09.1970 for a period of 10 yeaRs.The eligibility to earn pension in terms of Regulation 78 of Navy (Pension) Regulations,...
Tag this Judgment!