//
archives

Haryana

This tag is associated with 84 posts

Haryana Apartment Ownership Act,1983 (for short “the Apartment Act”) – Development Act – Declarations in respect of “common areas and facilities” – the owners cannot claim any undivided interest over those facilities except the right of user – they cannot claim an undivided interest or right of management over them.- agreements executed between the colonizer and the DTCP vis-à-vis the various provisions of the Apartment Act, the statutory declaration made by the colonizer and the Sale Deeds executed between the parties – Apex court set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed before the High Court. The appeal is, therefore allowed. = DLF Limited ….. Appellant Versus Manmohan Lowe and others …..Respondents =published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41058

Haryana Apartment  Ownership  Act,1983 (for short “the Apartment Act”) –  Development Act – Declarations in respect of “common areas and  facilities” – the owners cannot claim any  undivided interest over those facilities except  the  right  of  user – they  cannot claim an undivided interest or right of management over them.- agreements executed between the colonizer and the DTCP  vis-à-vis the  various  provisions … Continue reading

No medical negligence = False claim alleging that operation was done over the dead body by playing mellow drama patient was joined with heart ailment for two days for claiming operation charges -No medical negligence Dismissed = Surinder Singh -verses -1. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre and others = published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00131111150515946OP46402.htm

No medical negligence = False claim alleging that operation was done over the dead body by playing mellow drama  patient was joined with heart ailment, for two days for claiming operation charges -No medical negligence Dismissed =   Opposite parties have proved on record the nurses charts / notes maintained by Duty nurses who attended to the patient Virendr Kaur after the surgery till … Continue reading

Service – matter = Disproportionate punishment to the negligence proved – Dismissal orders quashed – directed to pay retire benefits and pension as he was dismissed just 6 days prior to his retirement date = GIRISH BHUSHAN GOYAL APPELLANT Versus B.H.E.L. & ANR. RESPONDENTS = Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40954

Service – matter = Disproportionate punishment to the negligence proved – Dismissal orders quashed – directed to pay retire benefits and pension as he was dismissed just 6  days  prior  to  his  retirement  date =   “25(1). No order imposing any of  the  major  penalties  specified  in       Clause (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j) … Continue reading

Contempt of court – when apology tendered is a bona fide one , court should not reject the same- All Dismissal main cases should not absolve the liability of contemnor = – T.C. GUPTA … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS BIMAL KUMAR DUTTA & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S) – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40900

Contempt of court – when apology tendered is a bona fide one , court should not reject the same-     All Dismissal of main cases should not absolve the liability of contemnor  but it can be considered as mitigating factor =       The explanation to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts … Continue reading

Whether the DGP can reverse the adverse remaks in the matter of integrity recorded in ACR after the lapse of 9 years ? NO. Whether the successor D.G.P. CAN CANCEL THE SAME – yes – High court dismissed the writs filed by aggerieved persons – Apex court confirmed the same. – VINOD KUMAR …….. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ……….RESPONDENT(S) – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40896

Whether the DGP  can reverse the adverse remaks in the matter of integrity recorded in ACR after the lapse of 9 years ?  NO. Whether the successor D.G.P. CAN CANCEL THE SAME – yes – High court dismissed the writs filed by aggerieved persons – Apex court confirmed the same. after almost 9 years,  he … Continue reading

Contempt of Court = Bonafide mistake in not furnishing the required information T.C.GUPTA & ANR Vs. HARI OM PRAKASH & ORS. published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40876

Bonafide mistake in not furnishing the required information to the High Court may not amount to     contempt of court  – Apex court set aside the orders of High court =        .  Before we part with this topic, we would like to refer to              one aspect … Continue reading

power of state govt. in varying salary of constitutional appointee ; Binding nature of judgment = G.L. BATRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40864

State Govt. is not competent to vary the remuneration fixed to the constitutional appointee ;     Earlier judgment of same bench is binding on the later bench of same quorum;       The earlier  judgment         may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on … Continue reading

Himachala Pradesh state amendment is with the view to provide impediment free reservation in promotion to the Scheduled-Castes and Scheduled-Tribes and to bring certainty and clarity in the matter. Furthermore, the aforesaid proposed amendment is to be introduced with retrospective effect from 17th June, 1995. = “‘Due Consideration’ is totally different from collecting quantifiable data. This exercise has to be conducted and no reservation in promotion can be made without conducting such an exercise. Therefore, the State cannot be permitted to make reservations till such exercise is carried out and clear-cut quantifiable data is collected on the lines indicated in M.Nagaraj’s case. We may also point out that other than making vague reference to “due consideration” having been done, till date the State has not produced before us any clear-cut quantifiable data which could establish the need for reservation. Merely because the amended provision of the Constitution enable the State to make reservation is no ground not to collect data. Therefore, the instructions have to be struck down as being violate of the law laid down in M. Nagaraj’s case by the Apex Court.”= We, therefore, allow this Interlocutory Application and direct the State of Himachal Pradesh to take a final decision on the issue either on the basis of the data already submitted to the Cabinet Sub-Committee on 25th April, 2011 or on the basis of the data reflecting the position as on 30th June, 2011, within a period of three months from today. Till a final decision is taken, the direction restraining the State of Himachal Pradesh from making any promotion shall continue H.P. Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation & Anr. … Appellants Versus Himachal Pradesh S.V.K.K. & Ors. …Respondents.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40773 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2012 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C.) No. 30143 OF 2009 H.P. Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation & Anr. … Appellants Versus Himachal Pradesh S.V.K.K. & Ors. …Respondents With CONTEMPT PETITION (C.) NO. 91 OF 2013 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C.) … Continue reading

adverse possession can be used as a shield/defence but not as a weapon = Even if the plaintiff is found to be in adverse possession, it cannot seek a declaration to the effect that such adverse possession has matured into ownership. Only if proceedings filed against the appellant and appellant is arrayed as defendant that it can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence.- As the appellant is in possession of the suit property since 13.4.1952 and has been granted the decree of injunction, it obviously means that the possession of the appellant cannot be disturbed except by due process of law. We make it clear that though the suit of the appellant seeking relief of declaration has been dismissed, in case respondents file suit for possession and/or ejectment of the appellant, it would be open to the appellant to plead in defence that the appellant had become the owner of property by adverse possession. Needless to mention at this stage, the appellant shall also be at liberty to plead that findings of issue No.1 to the effect that the appellant is in possession of adverse possession since 13.4.1952 operates as res- judicata. Subject to this clarification, the appeal is dismissed.

  published in   http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40774  NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8244/2013 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 23728 of 2012) Gurudwara Sahib …Appellant   Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr. …Respondents   J U D G M E N T   A.K.SIKRI,J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant herein … Continue reading

Presence of witness doubtful =According to the report (Exh.PAK) of the Deputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban no linkage could be established between the bullets recovered from the dead body and the fire arms allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused both of which were sent for forensic examination. The learned Trial Court also noticed that PW-11 and PW-12 had identified the accused including the present appellant for the first time in Court. It was also held that the refusal of the accused to cooperate and take part in the test identification parade could not be held adversely against the accused on account of the fact that even earlier to the proposed test identification parade the accused were shown to PWs 11 and 12 and also to the son of the deceased. The mere claim of the prosecution that PW-11 Sohan Lal and PW-12 Bharat Lal were eye witnesses to the occurrence could not have been sufficient for the High Court to treat the ocular version of the said witnesses as the undisputed version of the occurrence. The High Court did not test the prosecution claim in the backdrop of the totality of the facts of the case. Having done so, we arrive at a different conclusion and, therefore, take the view that the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal of the accused-appellant Prem Singh. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court insofar as the present appellant is concerned and restore the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal is consequently allowed. If the appellant is presently in custody he be released

 published in     http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40723  REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 925 OF 2009 Prem Singh … Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana … Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. The appellant, Prem Singh, alongwith six others was charged for various offences punishable … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,848,802 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,901 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com