Court : Punjab and Haryana
S.S. Saron, J. 1. The appeal has been filed by the appellant P. Sunder Raj, husband of the respondent P. Sarika Raj, against the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2012 passed by the learned District Judge Family Court, Gurgaon whereby the petition of the respondent-wife seeking cancellation of the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2009 passed by the learned Family Court, Hyderabad in OP No.1083 of 2008 has been allowed. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized at Gurgaon on 30.10.2002. The marriage was an outcome of an affair that the parties had. From the marriage the parties had a son namely Vishwajit Raj, who was born on 21.08.2006 and a daughter namely Lakshita Raj, who was born on 22.11.2007. After marriage, the parties stayed at Hyderabad. On account of matrimonial dispute between them, the respondent-wife filed OP No.1083 of 2008 on 05.01.2009 in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court at Hyderabad seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties on the grounds...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11258 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:16.07.2014 Kabal Singh son of Sunder Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Dehlon, Tehsil and District Una (Himachal Pradesh). ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab through Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Transport, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, and others. .... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Manish Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranbir Singh Pathania, DAG, Punjab, for respondents 1, 2 and 4. Mr. D.D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents 3 and 5. ---- 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.(Oral) 1. The point involved in the case is a claim for pension which was denied to the petitioner on the ground that he had vo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
LPA No.2053 of 2011 & -:1. - other connected matters IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH1 LPA No.2053 of 2011 in CWP No.12796 of 2008 Date of decision : January 31, 2014 Chandigarh Administration & another ......Appellants Versus Mrs. Neera Goyal & Ors. ...... Respondents 2. LPA No.2078 of 2011 in CWP No.14316 of 2008 Chandigarh Administration & Ors. ......Appellants Versus H. L. Vij & another ...... Respondents 3. LPA No.2079 of 2011 in CWP No.12865 of 2008 Chandigarh Administration & Ors. ......Appellants Versus Vishnu Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...... Respondents 4. LPA No.2118 of 2011 in CWP No.12838 of 2008 Chandigarh Administration ......Appellant Versus M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited & Ors. ...... Respondents Chander Vikas 2014.02.07 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.2053 of 2011 & -:2. - other connected matters 5. LPA No.2036 of 2011 in CWP No.14176 of 2008 Chandigarh Administration & Ors. ......Appellants Ve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CWP No.8276 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.01.2014 CWP No.8276 of 1993 Rajinder Singh Anand and others Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: - Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners JASBIR SINGH,J (Oral) The petitioners have prayed to quash their order of retirement at the age of 58 yeaRs.It is their case that as per States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Section 115-Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 and Section 82 Pepsu Service Regulations Vol.-I, they were entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years but injustice has been done with them. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.6541 of 1986 decided on 27.11.1986 wherein relief has been granted to the petitioner therein. However, qua none of the petitioner in the present case, it is mentioned as to when retirement was effected and the pleading ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CWP No.11477 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11477 of 1991 Reserved on:19. 09.2013. Date of Decision:05. 10.2013 Shiv Kumar and others ....Petitioners. Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents AND CWP No.1391 of 1994 Mohinder Singh and others ....Petitioners. Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH1 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. S.S.Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP No.11477 of 1991). Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP No.1391 of 1994). Mr. K.C.Bhatia, Addl. A. G. Haryana. Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate, for respondent no.3. **** Kumar Parveen 2013.10.11 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.11477 of 1991 2 PARAMJEET S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CWP No.1550 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1550 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 27.09.2013 Chander Bhan Singh Rana ........Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ........Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.S.S.Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Shruti Goyal, AAG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of 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?. Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral).The petitioner was appointed in the erstwhile Punjab Land Development and Seed Corporation Limited. On the reorganisation of the State of Punjab his services were taken over by the Haryana Agro Industries and he had been working at the Hisar Seed Farm w.e.f.1.05.1972. The Hisar Seed Farm was taken over by the Haryana Agricultural Department and the services of the petitioner were also taken over by the Haryana Agricultural Department o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15786 of 1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 20, 2012 **** M/S.Vijayant Travels & Anr. . . Petitioners versus State of Punjab & ORS.. . Respondents **** CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HONBLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH **** 1. Whether Reporters of 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.MS Khaira, Senior Advocate; Mr.Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate; Mr.DS Kamra, Advocate; Mr.Dharminder Singh, Advocate; Mr.Rajender Sharma, Advocate; Mr.PS Bawa, Advocate; Mr.Vishal Sharma, Advocate; for the PETITIONER(s) Mr.Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. AG Punjab assisted by Mr.Daman Dhir, Advocate Mr.Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana Mr.Baldev Kapoor, Advocate and Mr.Rohit Kapoor, Advocate Mr.Anupam Singla, Advocate (in CWP-8783-2012) for PRTC/PEPSU Mr.Vijay Rana, Advocate for respondent No.16 (in CWP-13624-2009) **** CWP No.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
1 C.M.No.15703 of 2012 In CWP No.14585 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:18. h December, 2012 C.M.No.15703 of 2012 In CWP No.14585 of 2011 Mukesh Rao ...Petitioner Versus The High Court of Punjab & Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA 1 Whether Reporters of 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. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Priyanka, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. S.S.Patter, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.2. HEMANT GUPTA, J.This order shall dispose of an application filed by the petitioner that the members of this Bench should recuse from hearing the present writ petition for the reason that the Members of this Bench were also the Members of the Full Court, which recommende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No.6458 of 2012 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6458 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision :30. 11.2012 Dr. Parikshit Bansal and another .. Petitioners versus Union of India and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7. Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Rajesh Bindal, J.1. The petitioners have approached this court challenging the appointment of respondent No.3 as Registrar of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Mohali, (for short, 'the NIPER').2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent NIPER issued advertisement No.02/ 2011 for selection to the post of Registrar on 29.1.2011. In response thereto, the candidates applied. After considering the eligibility of the applicants, the interview was held and finally respondent No.3 was selected...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CWP No.2642 of 1993. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2642 of 1993[O&M].Date of decision: November 29, 2012. Gram Panchayat Darba Kalan ...Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or No.?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Shri Tarun Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.D.Sharma, Dy. AG, Haryana ** ORDER Surya Kant, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.4330 of 1992, 2642 of 1993, 827 and 1450 of 1994 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. The facts are being extracted from CWP No.2642 of 1993. [2].Gram Panchayat of village Darba Kalan, District SiRs.seeks quashing of notification dated 22.02.1993 issued by the State Government in purported exercise of its powers conferred u...
Tag this Judgment!