Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-20-2012
Crl. Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.4122 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:20. 12.2012. Dr. Mehboob .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner was tried for offence punishable under Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii).section 18(A) punishable under Section 28, 18(a) (I) read with Section 17A Rule 125A and Schedule R-1 punishable under Section 27(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('Act' for short).The Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 18.1.2011/22.1.2011 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 27(b) and 28 of the Act. Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.12.2012 acquitted the petitioner qua off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-11-2012
Civil Writ Petition No.7928 of 2012 (O&M) :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 11 2012 Ms.Karuna .....Petitioner VERSUS Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?.2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. PRESENT: Mr.Aman Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No.7928 of 2012) Mr.HaRs.Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No.7951 of 2012) Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No.7969 of 2012) Mr.Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vikram Anand, Advocate, for Chandigarh Administration. Mr.Siddharth Sanwaria, Advocate, for respondent No.2 (in CWP No.7928 of 2012) Mr.Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for the Medical Council. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. In these three civil writ petitions, eligibility of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-26-2012
Crl.Misc.not M- 887 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.not M- 887 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:26.11.2012 Baldev Krishan Mehra and others .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana Mr.R.N.Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short) for quashing of order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P-3).Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that marriage of petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 was performed on 10.6.1996. They started resided separately since 10.11.1996. FIR in question was registered on 3.2.1997 at the behest of respondent No.2. Challan was prepared by the investigating agency after investigation on 22.1.1998 and was presented in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-20-2012
Civil Writ Petition No.8697 of 2009 (O&M) :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 20 , 2012 Shri Dhanwantry Educational Society, Ayurvedic College and Dabur Dhanwantry Ayurvedic Hospital, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh .....Petitioner VERSUS Panjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?.2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. PRESENT: Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No.8697 of 2009).Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr.Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No.17592 of 2010. Mr.Gurminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No.16219 of 2012).Mr.Sukhdeep S.Sandhu, Advocate, Central Government Standing Counsel, for the Union of India. Ms.Anu Chatrath Kapur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.Atul Arya, Adv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-16-2012
CR No.5871 o1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5871 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: November 16, 2012 The Patiala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd...Petitioner Versus Mohan Singh ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Ms.Jagdeep Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.GS Gandhi, Advocate, for the respondent. A.N.JINDAL, J. This petition has arisen out of the order dated 4.9.2010 passed by the fiRs.appellate court declining the application for condonation of 23 days delay in filing the appeal. The plea set up by the petitioner for condonation of delay is that the Patiala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Patiala, (herein referred as 'the petitioner') was represented by Shri Deepak Sood before the trial court. Though the suit was dismissed on 26.8.2009, but the petitioner was not intimated about the same by the counsel. However, he was supplied the copy of the judgment alongwith the letter only on 26.10.2009 and the brief was handed over to him...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-16-2012
CRM M-25733 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-25733 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 16, 2012 Daljit Singh Gujral and others ... Petitioners Versus Jagjit Singh Arora and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH 1 Whether Reporters of the 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?. Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jagjit Singh Arora, respondent No.1 in person. Paramjeet Singh, J.Medical profession is one of the most oldest professions of the world and is the most humanitarian one. There can be no better service than to serve the suffering, wounded and the sick. Doctors are treated as equivalent to Lord Vishnu. Unfortunately, not a days with the upcoming of corporate culture, medical profession which was highly respected is indicating decline of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-07-2012
RanjanGogoi, C. J. Oral: This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking directions from the Court for use of the 'Half Way Home' located in Sector 47-D, Chandigarh (behind Ram Mandir) for the purpose it was inaugurated in the year 2002 i.e. to take care of the mentally ill persons. According to the petitioners, who are four in number, sometime in the year 2008, the 'Half Way Home' was given another name i.e. 'Aashreya'; a formal inauguration of 'Aashreya' took place on 03.12.2008 and thereafter the said institution i.e. 'Aashreya' is functioning in place of the 'Half Way Home'. As 'Aashreya' takes care of mentally challenged persons who are different from mentally ill persons, grievance has been raised that the action of the respondents leading to closure of the 'Half Way Home' is prejudicial to the mentally ill patients. Hence, the Public Interest Litigation. The affidavit filed by the Chandigarh Administration before the Court disputes the aforesaid question/issue raised by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-17-2012
Rajesh Bindal J. 1. This order will dispose of above mentioned two petitions bearing C.W.P. Nos. 15188 and 15758 of 2011, as common questions of law and facts are involved. Respondent No. 2-workman in C.W.P. No. 15188 of 2011 was allegedly enegaged as electrician, whereas in C.W.P. No. 15758 of 2011, respondent No. 2-workman was engaged as Mechanic. 2. The facts, in detail, have been extracted from C.W.P. No. 15188 of 2011. 3. Challenge has been made to the award dated 30.11.2010, passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby it directed for reinstatement of respondent No. 2-workman in service with 50% back wages. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a public limited company having its registered office in Mumbai. It is, inter-alia, engaged in the business of manufacture of tractors. It has regional sales office in Karnal, where as per the demand in the year, the vehicles used to be desp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-09-2012
HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioners i.e. the vendors of the sale deeds executed in respect of land measuring 59 Acres 1 Kanal 19 Marlas in the year 2000, have sought to annul such sale deeds in the present writ petition. The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arisesare that the State Government has initially published a notification dated 07.07.1998 (Annexure R-1) under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') intending to acquire land measuring 122 Acres 2 Kanals 7 Marlas for a public purpose namely for setting up the 'Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot' (for short the University). After such notification was published, the landowners entered into agreements with the State Government for sale of such land. One of the such agreements is annexed as Annexure P-4 (dated 29.07.1999), wherein the landowners agreed to sell their shares of property to the State Government at the rate of Rs.4,50,000/- per acre for the purpose of establishin...
Tag this Judgment!