Court : Punjab and Haryana
1. Malayan Banking Berhad (Maybank) - defendant No. 6 before the lower Court has filed the present revision against the order dated 16.9.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which, the order dated 25.2.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana, dismissing the application of the plaintiffs was reversed and the injunction application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed whereby defendant Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. State Bank of India were restrained from releasing the letter of credit in favour of defendant No. 6 (the present revisionist). 2. Brief facts of the case which are required to be noticed for the purpose of disposal of the present revision are that the plaintiff M/s Jindal Impex through its sole proprietor Kuldeep Jindal is engaged in import of copper wire/rod. Defendant No. 3 M/s Sims Copper is engaged in business of supplying of copper wire and rods to the customers througho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Raj Rahul Garg, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.02.2011 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby, appellant-accused Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi @ Bura, was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Vide order of sentence of even date, he was sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default clause. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is like this: that on the statement (Ex.PA) of Simarjit Kaur, this case was registered. She stated before the police that she is a teacher. On 28.01.2007, at about 12:00 noon, appellant-Jaswinder Singh took Avtar Singh (deceased) from her house saying that he had some work at Police Station Tanda. Both of them left on a scooter. During the intervening night of 28/29-01-2007, when she was asleep in her house, her husband Avtar Singh came home and left the house by saying that he was going with Jaswinder Singh on ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. 1. The petitioner-firm seeks quashing of order dated 4.5.2007 (Annexure P-7), passed by the third respondent, resuming plot no.126, Sector 7, IMT, Manesar. Petitioner is also aggrieved of the orders dated 26.3.2008 (Annexure P-8) and 25.4.2013 (Annexure P-12), whereby the action of resumption has been affirmed by the Appellate Committee headed by the Principal Secretary, Industries Department, Haryana and the Anomaly Committee constituted under the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation. 2. The plot in question was allotted to the petitioner-firm vide regular letter of allotment dated 8.3.2000 for setting up a project for manufacturing of Dhoops (incense sticks) of different varieties. Certain terms and conditions of the regular letter of allotment and which would be relevant to the case in hand are reproduced below:- "Other terms and conditions governing this allotment shall be as follows:- a) The payment of balance 75% of the price of the plot/she...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral): 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Chandigarh, whereby application under Section 75 of the ESI Act for quashing the order dated 25.08.2006 passed under Section 45-A of the ESI Act claiming contribution amounting to Rs. 2,93,178/- for the period April, 2002 to March, 2004 plus interest, has been dismissed. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the notice Exhibit R-1 which was the basis for initiating proceedings against the appellant is based upon presumptions and assumptions. He contends that the conclusions drawn in the said notice are beyond comprehension and in any case, as per the response which has been given by the appellant, the same gives ample justification and explanation to the notice, which has not been properly considered by the authorities including the Employees Insurance Court, Chandigarh, and, thus, the impugned order dated 26.11.2013 cannot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Mahesh Grover, J. The petitioner impugns letter Annexure P-10 dated 27.7.2009 by which the recovery is sought to be effected from him allegedly under the provisions of Section 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The amount stipulated in the recovery notice is Rs.5,90,222/- for the period December, 1984 to April, 1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that his unit was closed in the year 1984 and from that period onwards, he has deposited a substantial amount with the Provident Fund Authorities which is more than Rs. 17 lakhs, a fact not controverted by the respondents. The petitioner has also shown to this Court a letter dated 29.6.2000 which is taken on record as mark 'X' indicating that on the said date an amount Rs.4.40 lakhs was to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner then would draw the attention of this Court to Annexures P-5 and P-6 the details of the payments made by him which would also substantiate that from 2000 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Raj Mohan Singh, J. 1. Vide this judgment RSA No. 754 of 2012 titled as Gurjinder Singh v. Paramjit Kaur and another and Cross objection No.15-C of 2012 are being decided. 2. Plaintiff Gurjinder Singh filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.12.1999 in respect of land measuring 1 kanal as depicted in the head-note of the plaint. In alternative, suit for recovery of Rs. 9,68,00/- along with interest i.e. 80,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- earnest amount and 40,000/- penalty + Rs. 1680/- as interest @ 12 % per annum from 12.02.2000 upto 15.10.2002) and forfeiture interest @ 12 % per annum was also pressed into service. Plaintiff alleged that agreement to sell was executed on 17.12.1999 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,74,000/-. Defendant No.1 received Rs. 40,000/- as earnest amount at the time of execution of agreement to sell in the presence of attesting witnesses namely Purshotam Singh and Darshan Singh. The target date for registration of sal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
M.M.S. Bedi, J. 1. The petitioner is mother-in-law of respondent No.1. Vide order dated 9.7.2011, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad, had allowed the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') filed by respondent No.1, holding that respondent No.1 had been a victim of domestic violence. Respondent No.1 was held entitled to the protection order, residence order and monetary order. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 29 of the Act against the order dated 9.7.2011, which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide order dated 2.3.2012. 2. Counsel for the petitioner, mother-in-law, has vehemently urged that she is the owner of the house as per the sale deed, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P1 indicating that she had purchased this property from Bhagwati Sharma vide sale deed dated 27.9.2006 and that respondent No.1 cannot claim any right in the house o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Rajiv Narain Raina, J.(Oral): 1. Having considered all the aspects of the case with the assistance of both the learned counsel and after perusing the record, there appears to be hardly any doubt that Mr. Arora is correct in his submission that the petitioner was deprived of his right maturing at 240 days to secure to him his industrial rights under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The termination, in all probability, was occasioned by a decision 'written or unwritten', not to let the petitioner complete 240 days of service. He cites the decision of this Court in The Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and ors., 1991(1) SLR 209; The Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kapurthala v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jullundhur and others, 1984(1) SLR 435 and the decision of the Supreme Court in The Ferozepur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr., 1985(2) SLR 437, Central Bank of In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Rajiv Narain Raina, J. Notice of motion was issued in this case by passing the following order on February 10, 2015 : - The instant writ petition is directed against the award dated 12.9.2013, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, whereby while answering the reference, the petitioner-workman has been held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- only and the relief of reinstatement has been denied. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would inter alia contend that a finding having been returned as regards non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and coupled with the fact that the workman-petitioner had worked for a period in excess of 6 years i.e. from 17.2.1993 to 10.8.1999, the relief of reinstatement should have been granted. In the alternative, it has been argued that the compensation awarded i.e. Rs.10,000/- is paltry and much on the lower side. Notice of motion, returnable for 25.7.2015. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Raj Mohan Singh, J. 1. Plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of Will dated 28.08.1990 executed by Manjit Singh real brother of the plaintiff. Mutation in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 has been claimed to be null and void. Plaintiff further sought relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land. Plaintiff alleged that plaintiff and Manjit Singh were living in UAE. Manjit Singh was having strained relations with his wife. There were various civil and criminal litigations between them. Plaintiff was serving his brother Manjit Singh. Even they were living in UAE prior to marriage of Manjit Singh. On account of love and affection, Manjit Singh executed a Will dated 28.08.1990 in favour of plaintiff ignoring the defendants in respect of property. Manjit Singh ultimately died on 11.01.1991. P...
Tag this Judgment!