26 November, 2014

If there is some clerical mistake or some mistake which can otherwise be segrigated and cured, such mistakes do not vitiate whole of the award - Court can correct such mistakes by modifying the award and whole of the award need not be set aside for such mistakes

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
First Appeal from Order No. 364 of 1992. D/d. 18.7.1994.

Gables India Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent

For the Appellant :- R.S. Mittal, Sr. Adv. with M/s Arun Singal, and P.S. Rana, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Mr. G.K. Chatrath, Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. Arun Walia, Assistant Advocate General Punjab.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

JUDGMENT


Amarjit Chaudhary, J. - M/s. Gables 9 (India) Private Limited has filed this appeal against the judgment of Sub-Jduge 1st Class, Ropar, dated January 4, 1992, vide which the trial Court on application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act filed by the State of Punjab had set aside the award rendered by the sole Arbitrator on 23.8.1990.

Read full Judgment »

26 November, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

Driver holding learner's licence - Expiry of licence before date of accident - Driver applying for regular licence within 30 days of expiry of learner's licence - Held - Regular licence is automatically renewed if application for the same is made within 30 days from the date of expiry - However, no such provision is there for automatic renewal of learner's licence

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- S.B. Sinha and Mukundakam Sharma, JJ. 
Civil Appeal No. 1537 of 2009. D/d. 05.03.2009.

Bhuwan Singh - Appellant
Versus
M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. - Respondents

For the Appellants :- Mrs. Rachana Josihi Issar, Shailendra Kumar, Ms. Nidhi Tewari, Advocate.
For the Respondents :- Ms. Majusha Wadhwa, Ms. Samina Sheikh, Advocate.

Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT


S.B. Sinha, J. - Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 3-04-2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Appeal From Order No. 589 of 2006.

Read full Judgment »

by Puneet Batish · 0

19 November, 2014

Admission made by a party in Court - Admission is a valid and relevant piece of evidence to be used in other legal proceedings - Since an admission originates (either orally or in written form) from the person against whom it is sought to be produced, it is the best possible form of evidence - Supreme Court 2011

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 3617 of 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16921 of 2006). D/d. 26.4.2011.

Mritunjoy Sett - Appellant
Versus
Jadunath Basak (D) by Lrs. - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate, Sriram Krishna, Ms. Malashree Ghosh and B.P. Yadav (for Mrs. Sarla Chandra), Advocates.

Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT


Deepak Verma, J. - Leave granted.
2. In this appeal, the question that arises for our consideration is whether the Notice of eviction served by the appellant-landlord upon the respondent- tenant under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Act"), thereby determining his tenancy, was valid, legal and in accordance with law or not ?

Read full Judgment »

19 November, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

18 November, 2014

Section 340 CrPC - Document forged while it was in custody of Court - Offence is made out, but Court may not lodge a complaint where effect of forged document was minimal on the administration of Justice

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- R.C.Lahoti, CJI, B.N. Agrawal, H.K. Sema, G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2005 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4111/2000). D/d. 11.3.2005

Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. - Respondents

(With Criminal Appeal Nos. 904/1998 & 1069-1070/1998)
For the Appearing Parties :- Dr. A.M. Singhvi, T.L.V. Iyer, Y.P. Narula, Sr. Advocates with Joy Basu, Vinod Kumar, Rahul Tyagi, Madhurendra Kumar, B.K. Satija, V. Krishnamurthy, P.R. Kovilan, V. Balachandaran, Gopalakrishnan, Abhay Kumar, Subramonium Prasad, Abhijeet Chatterjee, Subodh Pathak, Ms. Seema Bengani, Chanchal Kr. Ganguly, Raghuvendra S. Srivastava, V. Senthil Kumar, V.J. Francis, P.I. Jose, Jenis V. Francis, Anupam Mishra, E.M.S. Anam, Shantha Kr. V. Mahale and Rajesh Mahale, Advocates.

Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT


G.P. Mathur, J. - Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 4111 of 2000.
2. In view of conflict of opinion between two decisions of this Court each rendered by a bench of three learned Judges in Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh, 1996(3) RCR(Crl.) 240 (SC) : 1996(3) SCC 533 and Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 823 (SC) : 1998(2) SCC 493, regarding interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), this appeal has been placed before the present Bench.

Read full Judgment »

18 November, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

16 November, 2014

Section 190 CrPC empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence on receipt of information from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge, that an offence has been committed

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Criminal Misc. No. 50338-M of 2003. D/d. 6.4.2004

Rohin Kumar Sachdeva - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Mr. P.S. Hundal, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Rajinder Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

JUDGMENT


Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - In this petition, the questions that arise for consideration are whether the power of the Judicial Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') can be exercised or survive after taking cognizance of an offence and after recording of some prosecution evidence, irrespective of the power under Section 319 of the Code, for summoning a new person to proceed against him on the basis of the material submitted by the police in its final report under Section 173 of the Code; and secondly whether at the stage when some evidence has been recorded during the course of trial, charge can be framed against the additional accused only on the basis of material and documents enclosed by the police with the final report submitted under section 173 of the Code.

Read full Judgment »

16 November, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

If appeal is filed against mode of partition, it amounts to automatic stay ofproceedings, execution of instrument of partition is only a stage towards execution of order of partition - Possession even if delivered to parties before partition is made effective will not extinguish status as a co-sharer

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Hemant Gupta, J.
RSA No. 3615 of 1987. D/d. 24.1.2005

Lal Chand (Dead) through LRs. - Appellants
Versus
Ganga Ram (Dead) through LRs. - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Mr. A.S. Tewatia, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

JUDGMENT


Hemant Gupta, J. - The plaintiff pre-emptor is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court whereby his suit for possession by way of pre-emption of the land measuring 16 kanals 11 marlas being a co-sharer and thus have a preferential right to pre-empt the sale was dismissed in appeal by the first Appellate Court.

Read full Judgment »

by Puneet Batish · 0

14 November, 2014

Bharti Airtel Limited versus Veer Singh - D/D 31.10.2014

FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1771 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 11.10.2010.
Date of Decision: 31.10.2014.

M/s Bharti Airtel Limited

Circle Office, Rajiv Gandhi Technological Park, I.T. Park, Chandigarh, through its Authorised Signatory.
…..Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.
Versus

1. Veer Singh

S/o Ram Dayala Singh, Ward No.6, Peer Khana Basti, Sardulgarh, District Mansa.
….Respondent/Complainant.

2. Gurdeep Singh

 Meerpur Salesman, Airtel Sub Office, near Bus Stand, Mansa-Sirsa Road, Sardulgarh, through its Prop./partner.
….Respondent/Opposite party no.1

First Appeal against order dated 11.08.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.

Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.

Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Sh. Madan Sandhu, Advocate.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-


The appellant (opposite party no.2 in the complaint) has filed this appeal against impugned order dated 11.08.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short, “the District

Read full Judgment »

14 November, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

12 November, 2014

If there is some clerical mistake or some mistake which can otherwise be segrigated and cured - Court can correct such mistakes by modifying the award and whole of the award need not be set aside for such mistakes

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
First Appeal from Order No. 364 of 1992. D/d. 18.7.1994.

Gables India Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent

For the Appellant :- R.S. Mittal, Sr. Adv. with M/s Arun Singal, and P.S. Rana, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Mr. G.K. Chatrath, Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. Arun Walia, Assistant Advocate General Punjab.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

JUDGMENT


Amarjit Chaudhary, J. - M/s. Gables 9 (India) Private Limited has filed this appeal against the judgment of Sub-Jduge 1st Class, Ropar, dated January 4, 1992, vide which the trial Court on application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act filed by the State of Punjab had set aside the award rendered by the sole Arbitrator on 23.8.1990.

Read full Judgment »

12 November, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

10 November, 2014

Electricity consumption - Additional liability - Consumer making payment of the charges regularly on demand - Consumer to be informed in clear terms furnishing complete details about actual additional liability

KERALA HIGH COURT

Before :- Viswanatha Iyer, J.
O.P. Nos. 2866 & 3005 of 1983. D/d. 17.4.1989.

Cyriac - Petitioner
Versus
K.S.E. Board - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- N. Raghava Kurup, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Kallada Sukumaran, Advocate.

Kerala High Court, Ernakulam

JUDGMENT


Viswanatha Iyer, J. - I shall state the facts in O.P No. 3005 of 1983 as the pleading therein are complete and it involves a point additional to G.P. No. 2866 of 1983.

Read full Judgment »

10 November, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

08 November, 2014

Execution of Will - Will duly attested by witness - No evidence that testator affixed thumb mark in presence of attesting witness - Execution of Will was highly suspicious

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 7548 of 2002. D/d. 31.10.2011.

Dayanandi - Appellant
Versus
Rukma D. Suvarna and others - Respondents

For the Appellant :- D.P. Chaturvedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Romy Chacko, Advocate.

Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT


G.S. Singhvi, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court whereby he allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 1, reversed the judgment and decree passed by Ist Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as, 'the trial Court') and decreed the suit filed by her for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit property.

Read full Judgment »

08 November, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0

Dishonour of cheque - Notice demanding payment sent to accused - Cheque presented for second time on assurance of accused that cheque will be honoured - Cheque dishonoured - Cause of action will arise from second notice

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT (DB)

Before :- Amar Dutt and A.N. Jindal, JJ.
Crl. Misc. No. 477-MA of 2005. D/d. 31.7.2006

Haryana State Small Industries - Appellant
Versus
Laxmi Agro Industries - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. R.K. Mittal, Advocate.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

JUDGMENT


A.N. Jindal, J. - Special leave to appeal granted.
This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal dated 18.7.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, vide which complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited against Laxmi Agro Industries regarding dishonouring of the cheque dated 23.3.1994 for a sum of Rs. 20,21,521/- against the accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') was dismissed and he was acquitted.

Read full Judgment »

by Puneet Batish · 0

©2009-2011 Geek Upd8. Some content is copyrighted to Puneet Batish and may not be reproduced on other websites.
Download Print Friendly PDF FileFree Legal Advice on Phone