Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-10-2009
Reported in : (2010)157PLR304
Gurdev Singh, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 28.4.2008 passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide which he dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-landlord under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the ejectment application.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision are that the petitioner filed ejectment application against the respondents tenants for their ejectment from the shop in dispute forming portion of property bearing Unit No. 432/98 situated at Noor-wala Road, Ludhiana, on the ground on non-payment of rent. During the pendency of that ejectment application, he filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment thereof so as to add the following Para:(iii) That the petitioner urgently and bonafidely requires the property in dispute for the start of laboratory which is very much necessary for the petitioner as the patients are suffering heavily on account of their rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-19-2009
Reported in : (2009)156PLR446
Vinod K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 8.4.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, on an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for setting aside the award dated 19.10.2006.2. Along with the application, the petitioner moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act. The petitioner pleaded, that the award dated 19.10.2006 was passed by the Arbitrator ex parte, and that no notice was issued to the petitioner with regard to arbitration proceedings. Even after passing of the award, no notice was issued to him. The case of the petitioner was that he was admitted in PGI, Chandigarh, and, therefore, could not file application under Section 34, after the receipt of notice of execution. It was pleaded, that there is sufficien...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jun-22-2009
Reported in : (2010)157PLR1
Uma Nath Singh, J.1. This judgment shall also dispose of the connected batch of 112 writ petitions as mentioned in Annexure-A hereto since they raise, amongst others, important common questions of law, based on some what identical facts, relating to challenge to the validity of (i) The Punjab Infrastructure Development Ordinance 1998 (Punjab Ordinance No. 7 of 1998)/The Punjab Infrastructure Development Act 1998 (Punjab Act No. 1 of 1999) and The Punjab Infrastructure Development Cess (Collection) Rules, 1998 framed thereunder:(ii ) The Punjab Infrastructure (Development & Regulation) Act, 2002 (inclusive of Schedule I, II and III); (iii) Levy of cess under 1998 Ordinance/Act and Rules @ 1%, and fee @ 3% (though chargeable upto 6% ) under the 2002 Act, on ad valorem basis on sale and purchase of all agricultural produces except fruits, vegetables and pulses; (iv) use of machinery as provided under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act for collection of cess/fee, and (v) the clarificatory no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-05-2009
Reported in : (2009)156PLR700
Hemant Gupta, J.1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the Courts below on an application under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction alongwith an application for grant' of ad interim injunction. On such application, defendant No. 1 suffered the following statement on 13.11.2001:The defendant refused to accept service of summons. However, Sh. G.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, filed power of attorney on behalf of the defendant. Adjournment requested for filing written statement and reply to stay application. The plaintiff counsel submits that defendant is bent upon to demolish the wall forcibly. Defendant is present and stated at bar that he will not demolish the said wall. In view of which, case is adjourned to 22.11.2001 for filing written statement and reply to the stay application.3. The defendant filed written statement on 22.11.2001, but on the aforesaid date no interim order was g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-19-2009
Reported in : (2009)155PLR563
Ranjit Singh, J.1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 19981 of 2001, 1627, 2945 and 2997 of 2002 (Thakar Dwara Bhagwan Narain Ji, Pandori Mahantan and Anr. v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab and Ors.). Other writ petitions listed alongwith these petitions are Nos. 15811 of 1999 (Fauju v. The Financial Commissioner (Relief and Resettlement), Punjab, Chandigarh and Ors.) and 15812 of 1999 (Bachan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Relief and Resettlement), Punjab, Chandigarh and Ors.). These have been filed by respondent-tenants, challenging the order of their ejectment. Four Writ Petition Nos. 6911 and 6912 of 2002 (Lali v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab and Ors.) 6913 and 6914 of 2002 (Harbans Singh and Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab and Ors.) are those through which the tenants have challenged the order directing recovery of rent. Writ Petitions No. 2671 of 1982, 2790 of 1983, 2789 of 1983, 1151 of 1985, 1082 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-27-2009
Reported in : (2009)156PLR255
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. This order will dispose of 52 writ petitions arising out of same acquisition proceedings. Thirteen petitions being CWP Nos. 2177, 2186, 2190, 2196, 2291, 2294, 2297, 2322, 2323, 5539, 5552, 5598, 5607 of 1990 have been filed by the Improvement Trust, confined to the question of applicability of Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'The Act'), as amended vide Act No. 68 of 1984. The remaining 39 petitions have been filed by the land owners, seeking enhancement of compensation.2. Acquisition proceedings were initiated under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 vide notification dated 8.6.1973 followed by notification dated 26.7.1974 under Section 42 of the said Act. The Collector determined compensation by separate awards dated 31.10.1974 of Village Dugri, dated 1.8.1975 of Village Jawadi, dated 27.7.1976 of Village Burara and dated 5.8.197 of Villages Gill-1 and Gill-2. The purpose of acquisition was development of 400 acres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-30-2009
Reported in : AIR2009NOC2988(F.B)(P&H)
1. Hearing this petition, has been an experience of sorts. Sentiments and emotions were on a high. We were under an international scanner. Letters were addressed to the members of the bench individually, as well as, collectively. A lot of these letters came from overseas. Some of the communications were addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court, and were forwarded to us for our consideration. The media covered the hearings from day to day, and in doing so, reported the issues canvassed, as it perceived them. The issue under the scanner was an aspect of a religious belief i.e. whether maintaining hair unshorn is an essential/important tenet of the Sikh religion. Based on media projections, individual sentimentalities were aroused. Depending on what was reported, reaction of readers, who thronged the court, varied from day to day. Intellectuals, Sikh scholars, and preachers of the Sikh religion, attended court proceeding, to have a first hand account of what was going on. While not ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-02-2009
Reported in : (2009)154PLR219
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) date 17.07.07 vide which the Original Application (for short 'OA') of the petitioner herein was dismissed. Through the said OA the petitioner had sought the quashing of the orders dated 20.10.04 and 30.11.05, whereby the respondents had moved the petitioner from the post of Postal Assistant Department of Posts, Ambala, after conducting a departmental enquiry on the charge that she has concealed her true date of birth and accordingly she has acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant.2. Brief facts of the case as revealed by the case file are that on 09.06.94 the respondents issued an advertisement for the post of Postal Assistant against direct recruitment vacancies of Ambala Division. As per the advertisement the candidates belonging to OC (outsider candidate) category should have been between the age bracket of 18-25 yea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-19-2009
Reported in : [2009]94SCL336(Punj& Har)
K. Kannan, J.I. Petition for revival and the principal objectors1. The company which was ordered to be wound up in Company Petition No. 31 of 1995 is sought to be revived through the Company Petition No. 51 of 2006, at the instance of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6, who claim to be the major equity shareholders of the company. Petitioner No. 7, Sh. Sanjay Gulati is represented to be the financier/co-promoter to revive the company. The petition is resisted by several persons and principally by the Official Liquidator, who has moved an application for confirmation of sale of the only remaining items of property namely industrial shed in Plot No. 142, Sector 24, Faridabad. M/s. Saket Steels Limited has obtained a decree in respect of the very same property for specific performance in a civil suit bearing No. 66 of 1990 and they have sought for execution of the decree before this Court. Haryana State Electricity Board is another principal contender against the proposals for revival on the grou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-20-2009
Reported in : (2009)154PLR655
Ranjit Singh, J.1. Issue of significant importance concerning the Doctrine of Merger and that of Res judicata would arise for consideration in the present writ petition. At stake is the right of the petitioners and that of respondent No. 2 concerning the property, which was mortgaged before partition by respondent No. 2 to a person, who migrated to Pakistan after partition. Whether such a mortgaged property become evacuee property to be dealt with by custodian would be another important question requiring determination?.2. The petitioners while challenging order, Annexure P6, passed by District and Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur (respondent No. l) exercising revisional powers under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') would urge that respondent No. 1 could not have set at naught the proceedings finally determined by competent officer after 16 years, that too without sufficient cause shown, when the sale in favour of the petitioners had been confirmed and finali...
Tag this Judgment!