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-08-2014
Crl. Misc. No.M-35991 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-35991 of 2013 Date of Decision:08. 08.2014 Amritpal Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. B.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Parupkar Singh Ghuman, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ***** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.Petitioners-Amritpal Singh, Iqbal Singh, Ujagar Singh, Basant Kaur and Avtar Singh have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for quashing of FIR No.42 dated 28.05.2013 registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 148, 120-B IPC read with Section 149, IPC, at Police Station Sadar Budlada, District Mansa along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the dispute between the parties has been settled by wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-08-2014
Crl. Misc. No.M-27584 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-27584 of 2013 Date of Decision:08. 08.2014 Parminderjit Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Virk, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. Chander Shekhar Singhal, Advocate for respondent No.4. ***** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.Petitioners-Parminderjit Singh, Gurjit Singh and Ranjit Kaur have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for quashing of FIR No.143 dated 10.05.2011 registered under Sections 498- A, 323, 406 and 506 IPC at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala City, District Ambala along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 got married to complainant/respondent No.4 on 03.12.2009 and thereafter,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-08-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7380 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision:08.08.2014 Raj Kumari wife of Shri Om Parkash, House No.387, Sector 14, Sonepat (Haryana). ... Petitioner versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Panipat Divisional Office, Panipat Marketing Complex, Village Baholi, Post Office Panipat Refinery, District Panipat, through its Managing Director, and others. .... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. Yes.2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?. Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?. Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks for quashing of letter of intent and allotment of retail outlet dealership for the location at Village Karhans, District...
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 : Aug-20-2014
ARCHANA ARORA CWP No.15488 of 2014 1 2014.08.22 15:32 I am the author of this document IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.15488 of 2014 Date of decision: August 20, 2014 State of Haryana through Collector Bhiwani and another ....... Petitioners Versus Bhagwani and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Himanshu Raj , AAG.,Haryana for the petitioners. **** K. Kannan, J (oral).1. The challenge in the writ petition is by the State to an award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat directing the State to honour its commitment under Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojna scheme of providing for `1 lac as the insured amount to the family of the deceased who was in a lower income bracket. The policy itself was a measure of public welfare scheme floated by the State to help the family of a deceased citizen from distress and deprivation due to sudden death.2. When the claim was by the widow on a plea that her husband had died in a motor accide...
Tag this Judgment!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 : 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!