Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-19-2014
..... was served upon the petitioner, when was posted as incharge of the police post barwala levelling allegations that a small child of about two years of age, a son of nepali labourer working at a poultry farm known as amit poultry farm, barwala, who had fallen in the water tank and died, when information in this regard was received by the ..... reached there for taking necessary action. a compromise was got arrived at between the owner of amit poultry farm, namely, nitin garg and the father of the deceased child, a nepali labourer, named ramdev, where a sum of `60,000/- was paid by the owner of the poultry farm to the labourer, who was allowed to go away to an unknown .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-25-2014
..... to the extent the violations of arms act, the findings recorded by the special judge do not warrant any interference.178. however, the argument raised is that yusuf nepali was not the part of the conspiracy of hijacking of aircraft and that his retracted confessional statement, does not disclose that he was part of the conspiracy for ..... 309 cr.p.c. for recalling the witnesses for cross- examination. the revision was preferred by abdul latif, which was decided on 23.04.2004. accused yusuf nepali and bhujel have accepted the order passed by the learned trial court. such application was filed when their writ petition challenging the convening of court in jail was pending ..... hereinafter shall be referred to as a-1 to a-10 respectively.3. the appellants namely abdul latif and bhujel are the indian nationals, whereas appellant yusuf nepali is a national of nepal. all other accused are the pakistan nationals and are proclaimed offenders.4. the brief facts leading to the present appeals are that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-23-2014
..... arrested by the police party on the identification of mohinder singh. therefore, there was no need of identification parade qua him. regarding vishal arya @ sonu nepali and sukhjit singh @ kaka, they were certainly not previously known to the complainant. they were shown to the complainant in the police station and identified in ..... singh @ noni stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. the remaining accused kulwinder singh @ kinda, sukhjit singh @ kaka, vishal arya @ sonu nepali and malkiat singh also took the similar plea. in defence, accused examined nirmal kaur (dw1) and closed the evidence. after hearing the learned additional public prosecutor ..... judgment will dispose of cra no.d-765-db of 2009, filed by accused/appellants pushpinder singh @ noni, kulwinder singh @ kinda, vishal arya @ sonu nepali and sukhjit singh @ kaka against the judgment and order dated 10.8.2009, passed by the learned additional sessions judge, jalandhar, vide which the accused kulwinder singh .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-09-2014
CRA No.D-229-DBA of 2001 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA No.D-229-DBA of 2001 Date of decision: January 09, 2014 State of Punjab .................Appellant versus 1. Budh Singh son of Hari Singh son of Hakam Singh, aged 74 years, agriculturist, resident of Indra Basti Ram Nagar, Sunam, District Sangrur (dead, appeal abated against him in terms of Section 394 (1) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 09.09.2013).2. Jagrup Singh son of Budh Singh,, aged 31 years, agriculturist, resident of Ram Nagar, Sunam, District Sangrur 3. Manmeet Singh son of Daljit Singh, aged 26 years, agriculturist resident of Ram Nagar, Sunam, District Sangrur. .............Respondents. Criminal Revision No.455 of 2001 Date of decision: January 09, 2014 Hardev Singh son of Bant Singh, resident of village Higarwal, District Sangrur .................Petitioner versus 1. The State of Punjab 2. Budh Singh son of Hari Singh son of Hakam Singh, aged 74 Sunder Sham years, agriculturist, resident of In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-13-2014
Crl. Appeal No.341-DBA of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.341-DBA of 2001 Date of Decision :13. 1.2014. State of Punjab ...... Appellant Versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap and others ....... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH Present: Ms. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellant-State. Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the respondents. KULDIP SINGH, J.The State of Punjab has come up in appeal against the acquittal of accused Baljit Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Amrish Kumar and Jagdish Lal for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC; acquittal of accused Baljit Singh under Sections 307 and 25 of the Arms Act; acquittal of Sukhwinder Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Amrish Kumar and Jagdish Lal under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and acquittal of all the accused for offence under Section 148 IPC. Prosecution version is that on 16.3.1999 at about 10:00 P.M. Tejind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-15-2014
FAO-4178-2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4178-2012 (O&M) Date of decision:15. 1.2014 Manju Devi and others ...Appellants Versus Narender and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Kanhiya Lal, Advocate for Mr.Arun Bansal, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr.RC Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company **** Jitendra Chauhan, J.CM-17852-CII-2012 Despite sufficient opportunity, no reply has been filed by the respondents. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 103 days in re-filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. FAO-4178-2012 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short 'the Shanker Gauri 2014.01.16 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-16-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13459 of 1993(O&M) Date of decision:16.01.2014 Hospital Administrator, Salvation Army Macrobert Hospital Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur..Petitioner Versus The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act and Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur, and another..Respondents CORAM: HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present:- Mr.Gurdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. No.2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?. No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?. No.---- K.Kannan, J. 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act upholding the claim of the workman that the difference of the amount actually paid and the amount that was liable to be paid as minimum wage amounting to `10,426.45 by the Management to the workman. This amount of `10,426....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-27-2014
Crl. Appeal No.D-202-DB of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.D-202-DB of 2009 Date of decision: 27.1.2014 Kala and another .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent AND Crl. Appeal No.D-252-DB of 2009 Date of decision: 27.1.2014 Jeet Ram alias Jeeta .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH Present: Mr.Vinod Ghai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Simrandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Manuj Nagrath, Addl.AG Haryana. Kuldip Singh, J. By this judgment, we will dispose of two Criminal Appeals Kumari Meenu 2014.02.11 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.D-202-DB of 2009 -2- No.D-202-DB of 2009 titled as Kala and another versus State of Haryana and No.D-252-DB of 2009 titled as Jeet Ram alias Jeeta versus State of Haryana. The brief facts of the prosecution are that on 29.8.2005, Ashok ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-28-2014
CRA-D No.163-DB of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA- D No.163-DB of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 28, 2014 Harwinder Singh and others ...Appellants versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH Present: Mr.Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mandeep Kaushik and Mr.Vishavjit S. Virk, Advocates for the appellants. Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. *** Kuldip Singh J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants, namely, Harwinder Singh, Davinder Singh and Guravtar Singh, challenging the judgment and order dated 05.02.2009, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 2,500/- each; and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The brief facts of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-30-2014
C.R. No.582 of 2014 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.582 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision :30. 01.2014 Chander Bhushan Anand ....Petitioner Versus Devinder Kumar Singla ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. S.M. Wadehra, Advocate for the petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J.This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Executing Court dated 29.05.2013 vide which the prayer of the petitioner invoked in terms of Order 21 Rule 29 C.P.C. to stay the proceedings in execution was declined. The facts may be noticed in brief. The petitioner is a tenant in the demised premises and faced proceedings under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949(hereinafter called 'the Act'). The landlord had set up a plea that he is a specified landlord, owner of the building on the basis of a sale deed and since he had retired from public service, he required the premises for his own use and occupation. It wo...
Tag this Judgment!