Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Page 100 of about 14,146 results (0.035 seconds)

Sep 05 2011 (HC)

Maru Ram and Others Vs. Randhir and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

ram chand gupta, j. the present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 5.4.2007 passed by learned additional district judge, gurgaon, dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 8.6.2006 passed by learned additional civil judge, (senior division), gurgaon, vide which suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed with no order as to cost. 2. briefly stated, shamlat bachat land of village samaspur, tehsil and district gurgaon alongwith other land of proprietors of the said village was acquired by land acquisition collector, urban estate, gurgaon. respondents- defendants no. 1 to 3 were proprietors of the said village. they had sold their land to bhima son of shri shadi for sale consideration of rs. 60,000/- vide sale deed bearing vasika no. 895 dated 13.7.1965. mutation was also sanctioned in favour of bhima. present appellants-plaintiffs are successors of bhima. plea has been taken that the rights in shamlat deh including the shamlat bachat land of respondents-defendants no. 1 to 3 also devolved upon bhima-vendee and after his death upon the present appellants-plaintiffs. hence, plea has been taken that they are entitled to compensation regarding acquisition of the said land. 3. respondents-defendants no. 1 to 3 contested the suit filed by appellants- plaintiffs by taking the plea that their rights in the shamlat bachat land were never sold to predecessor-in-interest of present .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2011 (HC)

Udham Singh (Deceased) Through His Lrs and Others Vs. Harnek Singh and ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

k.kannan, j. 1. the lis and geneology 1. the plaintiffs, who were successful for securing a half share in the suit properties suffered a reversal of the decision at the appellate court. the additional district judge allowed the appeal of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. the plaintiffs are the appellants before this court. 2. the suit related to the estate of jiwan singh. the case will have to be understood in the context of the relationship between parties and it is, therefore, immediately set forth as under:- makhan singh jiwan singh narain singh (died prior to 1930) chand kaur (2nd wife) bholi (1st wife) (died on 09.04.1978) (died in 1930) gurbansi chinti (died on 15.02.1954) harnek singh jagtar singh avtar singh udham singh bakhshish singh nami (defendants) (plaintiffs) ii. history of previous litigation 3. it is an admitted case that jiwan singh died before 1930 leaving behind two widows, namely, bholi and chand kaur. the two widows held their respective widow's estate jointly and on the death of bholi, the properties survived to chand kaur. chand kaur had made a settlement of the property that she inherited in favour of gurbansi, her daughter on 29.06.1929. chinti, who was the only daughter of the first wife bholi, filed a suit impeaching the alienation as not binding on her. jiwan singh's brother narayan singh also filed a suit as a reversioner that the gift will not bind him. both the suits were disposed of together. it was held that the gift would .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 22 2012 (HC)

Malkiat Singh Vs. Rachhpal Singh and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

l.n. mittal, j. oral: by way of instant revision petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india, plaintiff malkiat singh has impugned order dated 28.02.2011 (annexure p-5), passed by learned additional civil judge (senior division), bathinda, thereby allowing application (annexure p-3) moved by defendants for permission to lead secondary evidence of the will dated 09.02.2002. defendants alleged in application (annexure p-3) that the original will was produced in mutation proceedings, but file of the mutation containing original will has been lost, as stated by concerned official. plaintiff opposed the application by filing reply alleging that loss of the original will has not been proved. concerned official stated about loss of mutation file, but did not state that original will was also in the mutation file. various other pleas were also raised. learned trial court, vide impugned order (annexure p-5), allowed the application filed by the defendants and permitted them to lead secondary evidence of the will, subject to proving existence of the original will and subject to all other just exceptions. feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition. in order dated 08.12.2011, it was noticed that counsel for the respondents stated that certified copy of the will in dispute is on the record of the trial court, but counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents mentioned about photostat copy of the will only in the application. accordingly, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 2012 (HC)

K.S. Dhillon Vs. Punjab Financial Corporation and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

l.n. mittal, j. oral: by this common judgment, i am disposing of two cases i.e. efa no. 2 of 2009, titled k s d hillon versus punjab financial corporation (pfc) and others and efa no. 3 of 2009 titled a nju s harma and n eeraj kumar versus pfc and others, as both these appeals have arisen out of single order dated 31.8.2009 passed by learned additional district judge, sas nagar, mohali whereby separate objections preferred by appellants of the two appeals have been dismissed. pfc filed application under section 31 of the state financial corporations act (in short, the act) against m/s ved sons private limited company (respondent no. 2 herein) and against ved pal anand (not party to the instant appeals). the said application was allowed by learned additional district judge, ropar vide order dated 28.10.1982 and recovery of the amount claimed by pfc was ordered to be effected with interest since 15.3.1978 till recovery along with incidental charges and miscellaneous expenses by putting to sale moveable and immovable properties mentioned in annexure a to the mortgage deed. ad-interim injunction and attachment of the properties under mortgage was also confirmed. respondents in the said case i.e. ved sons private limited company and ved pal anand were restrained from transferring or removing the mortgaged/hypothecated properties. pfc has filed execution petition for execution of aforesaid order dated 28.10.1982. in the execution petition, ks dhillon appellant filed objections .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 2012 (HC)

Present: Mr. R. D. Bawa Advocate Vs. the Commissioner Patiala and Othe ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

civil writ petition no.22879 of 201.:{ 1 }: in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh date of decision: november 21 2012 charan singh and another .....petitioners versus the commissioner, patiala and 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.r.d. bawa, advocate, for the petitioners.***** ranjit singh, j. father of the petitioners.namely, jethu singh, was owning 354 bighas and 14 biswas equal to 43.24 standard acres land as per jambandi for the year 1953-54. on 6.3.1955, the pepsu tenancy and agriculture land act was enacted. jethu singh had made a gift of 157 bighas 2 biswas of land in favour of wife, nimo and his four sons, namely, ajit singh, gurnam singh, prem singh and karam singh. the mutation was also accordingly sanctioned. the collector, agrarian, assessed the surplus area of jethu singh on 3.6.1960, considering the entire area of 354 bighas civil writ petition no.22879 of 201.:{ 2 }: and 14 biswas as his holdings. the collector ignored the gift of 157 bighas 2 biswas and accordingly held that 13.24 standard acres equivalent to 132.9 biswas was declared surplus with the land owner. this order was upheld by the financial commissioner on 2.5.1963. the petitioners would aver that if any land is being separately cultivated for two years prior to .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2013 (HC)

Subhash Chander Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

crm not m 1289.o 1. in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm not m 1289.of 2013 date of decision:6. 5.2013 subhash chander ...petitioner versus state of haryana ...respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice jitendra chauhan present: mr.gs kaura, advocate for the petitioner mr.ajay gulati, dag, haryana assisted by asi bhanwar lal mr.ashok arora, advocate for the complainant **** jitendra chauhan, j. (oral) by filing the present petition under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case fir no.644 dated 31.12.2012, registered under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 218, 120-b of the indian penal code at police station city fatehabad, district fatehabad. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of the transactions. he further submits that he being the numberdar of the village signed the roznamcha prepared by the patwari for sanctioning of mutation of the land in question. the petitioner did not forged any document. on the other hand, the learned state counsel opposes the crm not m 1289.o 2. prayer of the petitioner. he submits that the the petitioner and other co.accused by forging the documents sanctioned the mutation of about 700 kanals of land. he further submits that the original owners are stated to have died since long. he further informs that the accused have forged the signature and seal of the then cjm, hisar and attested the affidavits for sanctioning the mutation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2013 (HC)

Jaivir Ranga Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

crm not m-38311 of 2012 (o&m) -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm not m-38311 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision :01. 02.2013 jaivir ranga ...petitioner versus state of haryana ...respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice jitendra chauhan present: mr.s.r.hooda, advocate, with mr.r.k.sharma, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.ajay gulati, dag, haryana, assisted by asi rajinder, 305, eow, sonepat. jitendra chauhan, j. (oral) the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 439 cr.p.c.seeking regular bail in case fir no.250 dated 09.08.2011, registered under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 166, 167, 120-b of the indian penal code, at police station city sonepat. the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegation against the petitioner is that he verified the mutation prepared by ramesh kumar, patwari. after the transfer of ramesh kumar on 21.11.2008, the charge was taken over by kuldeep singh, crm not m-38311 of 2012 (o&m) -2- patwari, who got the mutation sanctioned from the co-accused, inder singh, naib tehsildar. before the mutation was sanctioned on 15.06.2009, the petitioner brought to the notice of the sanctioning authority about the irregularities in the record, and thus, he is being punished for being a whistle-blower in the matter. the co-accused, kuldeep, against whom there are allegations of destroying the record and getting the alleged mutation sanctioned from the naib tehsildar, inder singh, has already been admitted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 2013 (HC)

Bhupinder Singh and Others Vs. Amar Singh and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. rs.no.2772 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision:3. 9.2013 bhupinder singh & others -----appellant(s) versus amar singh & others -----respondent(s) coram:- hon'ble mr.justice rakesh kumar garg 1 whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?. 2. to be referred to reporters or not?. 3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present: mr.satinder khanna, advocate for the appellants. --- rakesh kumar garg, j. cm no.7359-c of 2013: the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. lrs of mukhtiar singh, defendant, as mentioned in para 3 of the application, are ordered to be brought on record for the purpose of this appeal. main appeal: appellants are the legal representatives of defendant mukhtiar singh and have filed the kumar ashwani instant appeal, challenging the judgment and decree of the trial 2013.09.06 15:46 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh rs.no.2772 o 2. court dated 26.11.2010 whereby the suit of the plaintiff- respondent for possession and permanent injunction has been decreed. further challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 3.4.2013 of the firs.appellate court whereby appeal filed by mukhtiar singh-defendant against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court has been dismissed. as per the case of the plaintiff, he purchased a plot measuring 0-8 marla comprised in khasr.no.263, as detailed and described .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2013 (HC)

Present: Mr.C.B.Goel Advocate Vs. Kumar Sanjay and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh civil revision no.382 of 2012 date of decision :15. 3.2013 smt.shobha and another .....petitioners versus kumar sanjay and others ......respondents coram : hon'ble mr. justice nawab singh present: mr.c.b.goel, advocate, for the petitioners. mr.amit jaswal, advocate, for the respondents. nawab singh j.(oral) this plaintiffs' revision is directed against the order dated november 16, 2011 passed by additional civil judge (senior division), kurukshetra, whereby application filed by the plaintiffs under order 6 rule 17 of code of civil procedure (for short the application .) to amend the plaint was dismissed.2. the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and partition of the property, mentioned in head note of the plaint. the property originally belonged to one bal kishan, who died on april 17, 2007. bal kishan had a son named aprajit, who pre-deceased him. petitioner shobha plaintiff is widow of aprajit and shakuntala defendant no.3 is widow of bal kishan. shobha claimed the inheritence of the property being the widow of aprajit. shakuntala filed written statement averring that she was owner in possession of the property in view of the will executed by bal kishan in her favour on april 10, 1989 and the mutation no.617 was accordingly sanctioned in her favour. civil revision no.382 of 2012 [2].3. taking into consideration the averments of defendant no.3 that she became the owner of the suit property by way of will dated april 10 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 2012 (HC)

Present: Mr.M.S.Bedi Advocate Vs. Financial Commissioner Cooperation P ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

civil writ petition no.2602 of 2012 (o&m) :1: in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh date of decision: november 27, 2012 gurmeet singh & another .....petitioners versus financial commissioner, cooperation, punjab, 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.m.s.bedi, advocate, for the petitioners.ms.monica chhibbar sharma, dag, punjab, for the state. mr.balwinder singh sehra, advocate, for respondent no.4. mr.ashwani prashar, advocate, for respondent nos.7 and 8. **** ranjit singh, j. 6 kanals land of late beant singh located in town of kharar has been auctioned by the kharar primary cooperative agricultural development bank ltd., kharar for a sum of `1,66,000/- for not repaying the loan of `37,000/-. beant singh had obtained this civil writ petition no.2602 of 2012 (o&m) :2: loan for tubewell on 29.12.1995 and had mortgaged his 6 kanals land in khasr.no.75/6. he is alleged to have obtained another `40,000/- as a loan for cattle shed on 7.11.1997, for which he had mortgaged land measuring 2 kanals 13 marlas. when he failed to pay instalments, the administrator of the bank on 20.5.2004 authorised the manager to proceed with the sale of mortgaged properties of the defaulted members.on the basis of this resolution, bank prepared the sale cases of .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //