Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1987 Page 1 of about 18 results (0.027 seconds)

Aug 11 1987 (HC)

The Ballamgarh Co-operative Choe Reclamation Society, Ballamgarh Vs. S ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-11-1987

Reported in : AIR1988P& H228

order1. this is a petition under arts. 226 and 227 of the constitution praying for quashing of the order dt. 20th july, 1984, passed by the district development. and panchayat officer, rupnagar, exercising the powers of the collector (annexure p/3), and the order dt. 26th feb., 1985, passed by the joint director panchayats, punjab, exercising the powers of the commissioner, under the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961(annexure p/4), by which certain land situated in. village ballamgarh, tehsil add district ropar; has been declared as shamilat land under the ownership of the gram panchayat, ballamgarh, and by which the punjab government notification dt. 5th jan., 1973 transferring the management of such land to the forest department as `protected forest has been declared illegal aitd void; hence not binding on the gram panchayat. 2. the proprietors of village ballamgarh got a co-operative society registered under the co-operative societies act with the name and style as the ballamgarh co-operative choe reclamation society. ballamgarh, on 30th may, 1941. the members of this society had one-third share in patti albela, patti khushala and patti gulab, out of khewat/khatauni 414/496, as recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1973-74(annexure p/1). 3. in 1947, owners of not less than two-third share of the land in dispute, with a view to conserve forests thereon, represented in writing to the collector of ambala district that the said land should be managed on their .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 1987 (HC)

Nirmal Singh and ors. Vs. Gurbachan Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-23-1987

Reported in : AIR1988P& H184

1. gurbachan singh first moved the revenue court for partition of 69 kanals 10 marlas of land situate in village hayat nagar against sadhu singh's representatives on the plea that he was the owner of half share, according to the jamabandi for the year 1969-70, and when the revenue court directed him to get his title decided in civil court, this suit was filed. 2. the legal representative of sadhu singh contested the suit and pleaded that the plaintiff and sadhu singh acquired land in two villages. hayat nagar and garden colony khojepur (bhabra), and there was partition between them, regarding memorandum dated 3-7-1958 was recorded and since then the parties are in exclusive possession of their respective portions. the land of village hayat nagar along with small area of the other village was given to sadhu singh and the remaining to the plaintiff. the plaintiff later on exchanged his land with another person in village hayat nagar. on this basis, it was pleaded that he was estopped by his act and conduct to seek partition. 3. the trial court by a well considered judgment and decree hold on appreciation of evidence that the partition was duly proved. the parties were in separate possession of the land allotted in partition of 1958 and in 1973 vide exhibit dl, the plaintiff had exchanged the land allotted to him in village bhabra, considering the same to be his own. the trial court also referred to rikhi ram v. sada ram, air 1977 punj & har 94 and came to the conclusion that .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 1987 (HC)

Parkash Singh Badal and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-01-1987

Reported in : AIR1987P& H263

s.p. goyal, j. 1. these three petitions (civil writ petitions nos. 3065, 3268 and 3435 of 1986), which are based on identical facts and involve common questions of law, have been filed for quashing the notices dated june 13, 1986, a copy of one of which is attached as annexure p-6, issued to the petitioners by respondent 6, the speaker of the punjab vidhan sabha, requiring them to show cause as to why they be not disqualified from the membership of the punjab legislative assembly in terms of art. 191(2) read with paras 2 and 6 of the tenth schedule of the constitution and his order dated july 4, 1986 (annexure p-8) rejecting the application (annexure p-7) of capt. amrinder singh, m.l.a., wherein he claimed to be recognised as the leader of the 27 m.l.as. who were stated to have formed a separate legislative party because of the alleged split in the shiromani akali dal. the attack is two prone. first, that the constitution (fifty-second amendment) act, 1985 is ultra vires of the powers of the parliament. second, that an appropriate order having already been passed by the speaker under para. 6 of the tenth schedule to the constitution, its successor had no jurisdiction to ignore that order and issue the impugned notices for a fresh decision. before embarking upon the critical examination of the many facet contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is essential to notice, in short, the facts and the pleas contained in their pleadings.2. the petitioners aver that in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 1987 (HC)

Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh Vs. Sa ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-05-1987

Reported in : AIR1989P& H21

orderd.v. sehgal, j.1. this revision petition filed by the punjab small industries & export corporation ltd. (for short 'the corporation') is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 20-9-1985 passed by the learned additional senior sub judge, ludhiana.2. the facts in brief are that sardul singh government contractor, plaintiff-respon-, dent 1, filed a suit for the recovery of rs. 2 lacs against the corporation. during the pendency of the suit, vide his order dt. 23-11-1983, the then learned sub judge 1st class, ludhiana, before whom the suit was pending, directed the dispute, which was the subject-matter of the suit, to be referred to the arbitrator on the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties. that order was apparently passed in exercise of power under section 21 of the arbitration act, 1940 (for short 'the act'). the arbitrator made his award on 22-8-1985 and filed the same in court. the learned trial court issued a notice regarding the filing of the award in court to the parties and adjourned the proceedings to 15-9-1985. however, on that date no one appeared on behalf of the corporation inspite of service of notice. vide order of the same date the learned additional senior sub judge proceeded against the corporation ex parte and ordered the original file to be summoned for further proceedings for 20-9-1985. on that date, through the impugned judgment it was observed that in spite of service of notice no one had appeared on behalf of the corporation .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 22 1987 (HC)

Harcharan Kaur Vs. Nachhattar Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-22-1987

Reported in : AIR1988P& H27

agnihotri, j.1. this first appeal has been held by smt. harcharan kaur wife of nachhattar singh against the decree of divorce granted in favour of husband nachhattar singh under sub-section (2)of s. 13b of the hindu marriage act, 1955, by the learned additional senior subordinate judge, jagraon, on 17th december, 1985.2. briefly stated, on 26h june, 1970, nachhattar singh son of chanan singh, resident of village sudhar, tehsil jagraon, district ludhiana, married smt. harcharan kaur daughter of nahar singh, of village raowal, tehsil jagraon; district ludhiana, by solemnizing the marriage by performing anand karj ceremony in village raowal. t6e parties lived together for about thirteen years as husband and wife and out of the wedlock two children were born--son hardeep singh aged about l2 1/2 years and daughter mandeep kaur aged about 4 1/2 years.3. in december, 1982, relations between the husband and wife got strained and they started living separately with effect from january, 1983. having lived separately for about one and a half years, they agreed to have their marriage dissolved by mutual content, as a result whereof a petition under s. 13b of the hindu marriage act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the act), for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was presented by husband nachhattar singh and wife harcharan kaur together. the petition filed on 23rd july, 1984, came up before the court for recording the statements of the parties on 24th july, 1984. after .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 1987 (HC)

State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Anita Madan and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-23-1987

Reported in : AIR1988P& H233

d.s. tewatia, j.1. respondent dr. anita madan, a p.c.m.s. grade-ii officer in the medical service of the state of punjab, was denied admission to the post graduate m. d. course in the medical college, amritsar. by the principal although admission was granted to similar officers, but with lesser percentage of marks in the m.b.b.s. the admission was denied to her on the ground that she did not have to her credit two years' regular rural service in that she was having only 1 year and 101/2 months' regular service and that she was not entitled to add to it her ad hoc rural service rendered by her before that, to make up the period of two years. the principal of the medical college took this view despite the fact that the civil surgeon, amritsar, had issued a requisite certificate regarding the rural service. 2. the respondent has challenged the action of the principal in this court on the writ side on the ground that once her service became regular her entire service had to be counted as a regular service and when so counted she fulfilled the requisite requirement of qualification of two years' regular rural service. her contention found favour with this court and writ petition was allowed and the appellant herein was directed to permit her to join the post graduate course. this order has been impugned by the appellant through the present letters patent appeal. 3. with respect, we entirely concur in the view that the learned single judge has taken on first principle on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1987 (HC)

State of Punjab Vs. Kesari Chand and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-13-1987

Reported in : AIR1987P& H216

m.m. punchhi, j.1. the appeal against acquittal has been placed before this full bench in the following circumstances:talwandi sabo co-operative agricultural service society limited. talwandi sabo, district bhatinda, is a registered society under the provisions of the punjab co-operative societies act, 1961. there was an embezzlement to the tune of rs. 1,22,116.50 as reported to the assistant co-operative societies, by an inquiry officer appointed for the purpose. it was detected that the embezzlement had been committed by showing bogus loans to have been advanced to some members, showing securities to have been returned to members fictitiously and by recovery of loans from certain members without showing their entries in the account books of the society. additional embezzlement had also been committed in relation to sale of sugar which had not been accounted for in the books etc. etc. the assistant registrar thus on 25-9-1970 sent a letter to the superintendent of police, bhatinda, whereupon a case under s. 408, indian penal code, was registered and after investigation the two respondents kesri chand, the secretary of the society, and surrinder singh, the president thereof, were sent up for trial before a judicial magistrate lst class, bhatinda. the challan was put in as late on 29-4-1980.2. charge was framed under s. 409, indian penal code, against the accused-respondents. the prosecution examined as many as 44 witnesses. finally on 23-12-1983, shri dalbara singh, judicial .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 1987 (HC)

Labh Singh Vs. Sunehri Devi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-27-1987

Reported in : II(1987)ACC282; AIR1988P& H149; [1989]65CompCas273(P& H)

1. this first appeal is directed against the award dt. 29-3-1986 made by the learned motor accidents claims tribunal, kurukshetra (for short 'the tribunal') and has been filed by labh singh--one of the owners of the offending vehicle. one of the grievances made in the appeal is that the learned tribunal wrongly absolved the national insurance company, respondent 4(for short 'the insurance company') of its liability. when the appeal came up for motion hearing before the division bench, notice was issued to the insurance company alone which means that as against smt. sunehri devi and jai bhagwan. claimant-respondents 1 and 2 the appeal was dismissed. roshan lal respondent no. 3 was the driver and also a co-owner of the offending vehicle. he filed cross-objection no. 89-cii of ~986. notice of the same was issued to the claimants and these were directed to come up with the main appeal. so, this judgment shall dispose of the appeal as also the cross-objections mentioned above.2. at the outset it may be mentioned that shri p.s. chauhan, counsel for respondent 3, who is also counsel for the appellant, contended that since notice of the cross-objections was issued to the claimants, it is open to respondent 3 to assail the finding of the learned tribunal to the effect that respondent 3 was negligent in driving the vehicle and determining the amount of compensation payable to the claimant respondents at rs. 40 000/- . i do not agree with this submission. the appeal was admitted only as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 1987 (HC)

Bimal Kaur Khalsa Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-20-1987

Reported in : AIR1988P&H95

d.s. tewatia, c.j. 1. petitioner smt. bimal kaur khalsa wife of sardar beant sing deceased. has through civil writ petition no. 3761 of 1986, question the vires of some of the provisions of the terrorist and disruptive activities (prevention) act, 1985. 2. the vires of some of the provisions of the said act have similarly been challenged through civil writ petitions nos. 1629 and 4074 of 1986 and criminal writ petitions nos. 827, 884 and 888 of 1996. 3. the provisions of the said act, the vires whereof had been challenged are section 3(2)(i). s. 7, s. 8. sub-section (2) of s. 9, sub-section (2). sub-sec: (2) and sub-section (3) of s. 13, s. 16 and cls. (a) and (b) of sub-sec.(2), sub-section (3). sub-section (4) and clause (b) of sub-section (5) of s. 17 of the act. 4. soon after the judgment in this case was reserved. the terrorist and disruptive activities (prevention ordinance. 1987 hereinafter referred to as the ordinance of 1987 was, promulgated, which came into force w.e.f. 24th may. 1987. this was brought to our notice. the case was relished for hearing. the petitioner expressed desire to amend the petition, so as to bring to challenge the relevant provisions. of the ordinance of 1987. the petitioner was permitted to file an amended petition, which she did and the respondent-union of india put in reply thereto. 5. the parties re-argued the case and the judgment was reserved. before the reserved judgment in the amended petition could be announced, the ordinance of 1987 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1987 (HC)

Baldev Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-17-1987

Reported in : AIR1988P& H251

d.s. tewatia, j. 1. this appeal was admitted to division bench by, the learned motion judge, who took the view that the decision in mohd. saddiq barry v. mohd. ashfaq (1953) 55 pun lr 448 : (air 1954 punjab 87) did not appear to lay down the correct law and required reconsideration and that is how this appeal is before us. 2. in mohd. saddiq barry's case (supra), harnam singh, j. (as he then was) took the view that where one of the questions, requiring determination in the suit along with other questions, is as to whether the property or any interest therein is an evacuee, then instead of dismissing the suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the civil court must refer the question as to whether the property in dispute or any interest therein is an evacuee to the custodian for determination and stay further proceedings in the suit and resume the hearing after the referred question has been finally determined by the statutory authorities in question. 3. a division bench in puran singh v. east punjab state, air 1961 punjab 48 following the ratio of this judgment has also taken the same view. 4. there is, however, contrary view expressed by kaushal, j. (as the then was) in chothu ram v. budhu ram, air 1976 punj & har 354. the contention raised before him was that the civil court in the given contingency where it did not have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon the question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not evacuee property .....

Tag this Judgment!


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