Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: punjab and haryana Page 3 of about 68,100 results (0.289 seconds)

Feb 12 2016 (HC)

M/s. Dhanna Mal Mulkh Raj Vs. The Secretary to Government of Punjab an ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

This order shall dispose of a batch of 15 cases bearing CWP Nos.27156, 27228, 27810, 27829, 27836, 27887, 27915, 27930, 27964, 27966, 28114, 28135, 28214, 27326 and 27333 of 2013. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.27156 of 2013. The facts, as narrated in the petition, are that on 25.01.1997, the petitioner purchased wheat of Rs. 4,42,080/- from the Food Corporation of India, Sangrur (for short "FCI, Sangrur") in the open auction under the Open Market Sale Scheme. The petitioner is alleged to have paid the price of the wheat along with taxes, market fees and the Rural Development Fund (RDF) to the FCI, Sangrur, who had further paid the market fee and the RDF to the concerned Market Committee. The petitioner received a notice dated 11.11.1997, followed by another notice dated 15.05.1998, asking it to produce all the records regarding the transaction of purchase and sale of the wheat, to which the petitioner filed a reply on 25.09.1998 to resp...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2016 (HC)

Beant Singh and Others Vs. Karnail Singh and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

1. Present Regular Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, whereby suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 12.12.2005 filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the Court of first Instance vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2009 and a money decree of Rs.11.00 lacs along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with costs was passed. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed by learned District Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, vide judgment and decree dated 7.5.2011 and the suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement was decreed.2. For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first Instance.3. Relevant facts of the case for the purpose of decision of this appeal; that parties to the litigation agreed for sale of suit-land on the basis of agreement of sale dated 12.12.2005 for a total consideration of Rs.49,50,000/-. A sum o...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2016 (HC)

Pawan Kumar and Others Vs. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Mar ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

The present judgment shall dispose of three writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 20631, 20306 and 20492 of 2015. The facts are being taken from CWP No.20631 of 2015. The petitioner challenges the order dated 10/11.09.2015 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner's request for extension in service has been rejected, in spite of the fact that his appeal had been allowed against the major penalty imposed. The respondent No.2 has passed the order by placing reliance upon Clause-4 of the Government Instructions dated 30.04.2015 (Annexure P6) holding that the earlier decision cannot be reviewed and in view of the fact that reduction in time scale continued to be a major penalty, as per para 6-B(ii) of the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1990 (for short, the '1990 Rules'). The petitioner who was appointed as a Field Officer in the year 1986, was charge-sheeted in the year 2005, on account of certain shortages f...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2016 (HC)

Amit Kumar and Another Vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. This petition has been filed praying for directions to quash the award dated 23.07.2015 (Annexure P-16) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Narnaul whereby the petition/ application of the petitioners challenging the disconnection of the electricity supply to the shop and seeking directions for restoration of the same was dismissed. It is averred in present petition that the father of petitioner No.1, namely Suresh Kumar was a tenant in the premises of Vishwakarma Samaj Bhavan @ 400/- per month in the name and style of M/s Sheonarain Sanjay Kumar and initial receipt (Annexure P-1) for six months from 24.10.1988 to 30.4.1989 was issued by Vishwakarma Samaj Bhavan. The firm M/s Sheonarain Sanjay Kumar was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act. The firm was also registered under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act (for short 'the Act') w.e.f. 01.04.2003 (Annexure P-4). After the death of the father of petitioner No.1 in November 2005, he...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2016 (HC)

Harbir Kaur Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Davinder Singh Randhawa had filed the instant petition raising his grievance for enhanced pension, etc. as also for quashing of orders dated 8.7.1993 and 28.8.1989 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) passed by the respondents. After the filing of this petition he expired on 7.7.1999 and his wife Harbir Kaur was impleaded as his legal representative. As pleaded in the petition, the facts are that in the year 1956, Davinder Singh Randhawa (herein referred as `the petitioner') had joined the Railway Protection Force as Sub Inspector. In 1968, he was promoted as Inspector and as Inspector Grade-I in the year 1983. In the year 1984, he was promoted as Assistant Security Commissioner and in the year 1989 he was posted at Ambala Cantt. On 20.11.1988, he had given three months' notice to the respondents for voluntary retirement, but withdrew the same on 6.2.1989 before expiry of the said period. Despite the withdrawal of his request, he was retired on 12.4.1989 vide order dated 28.8.1989 (Annexure P-2) an...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2016 (HC)

Randhir Singh Vs. The Secretary, Govt. of Haryana and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

1. Plaintiff Randhir Singh is in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.7.1990 passed by Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby judgment and decree dated 3.11.1987 passed by Sub Judge, Karnal was set aside. 2. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the verbal order of termination of services of the plaintiff dated 30.10.1985 is null, void, ineffective and without jurisdiction. Declaration was sought regarding restoration of his previous post along with payment of all outstanding dues. Plaintiff was working as a Work Charged Beldar in the office of defendant No.5 i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Augmentation, Sub Division No.IV, Karnal since 1982. Vide order dated 1.9.1985, plaintiff was transferred to the office of defendant No.4 i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Augmentation Canal, Sub Division No.III, Karnal in the same cadre and he continued to work as such in the office of defendant No.4 till 31.10.1985. Plaintiff alleged that his work and cond...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2016 (HC)

Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar Vs. Balbir Raj Sondhi (dead) through ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

1. Defendant- Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar is in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.1.1989 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby appeal against judgment and decree dated 24.10.1986 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jalandhar was accepted and suit of the plaintiff was decreed. 2. Plaintiff Balbir Raj Sondhi filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant-Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar from interfering in his peaceful possession and allowing him to make construction over the suit property measuring 19 marlas, depicted by words 'ABCD' with dimensions in the plaint after declaring the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the same. 3. Plaintiff alleged that he is exclusive owner in possession of 19 marlas of land as shown in the plaint. He applied for sanction of site plan to the Municipal Corporation on 15.11.1984 for construction on the suit property, but the same was illegally rejected by the defendant on 30.11.1984. The...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2016 (HC)

Urban Improvement Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Haryana and Other ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

S.J. Vazifdar, ACJ. 1. The petitioner seeks an order directing the respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 5,84,08,365/- paid as interest together with interest at the same rate as claimed by the respondents. In the alternative, the petitioner seeks an order directing the respondents to claim/charge interest only at the rate of 10% per annum and to refund the balance amount with interest at the rate determined by the Court. 2. The status of the petitioner is important in understanding the exemption orders in its favour which we will refer to later. On 23.06.1976 the Company Law Board in exercise of powers conferred under section 408 of the Companies Act, 1956 appointed the Directors for a period of three years to effectively safeguard the interests of the petitioner and the public interest. Respondent No.2 is the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana; respondent No.3 is the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA); respondent No.4 is the Green Fields Plot Holders Association an...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2016 (HC)

Sunil Kumar and Others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Oral: The above Criminal Revisions have been filed for setting aside the orders whereby applications moved under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners have been dismissed and charges under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been ordered to be framed. Criminal miscellaneous petition bearing CRM-M-10284-2011 has been filed for quashing of FIR No.RCCHG2009A0019 dated 10.06.2009 qua petitioner, registered at Police Station CBI, ACB, Chandigarh under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 66 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. As per the prosecution, during the year 2008-09, at Ludhiana, accused Parminder Kumar and Amandeep Singh by entering into a criminal conspiracy with accused KK Sharma and other customs officers, floated non...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2016 (HC)

Gurcharan Singh @ Mintu Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Kuldip Singh, J. 1. In this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks the quashing of order dated 13.11.2015 (Annexure P2), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure vide which application of the petitioner for releasing him on bail under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed. Also challenged is the order dated 1.12.2013 (Annexure P5), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, vide which the revision of the petitioner was dismissed. The undisputed facts of the case are that one FIR No.99 dated 5.8.2015 was registered regarding the murder of Mukul Bhardwaj. During the course of investigation, the police found that the present petitioner, namely, Gurcharan Singh @ Mintu is involved in the crime. Accordingly, the present petitioner was arrested by the police on 14.8.2015 and was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchk...

Tag this Judgment!


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