Janak Industries Pvt Ltd vs M/S Lakhani India Ltd on 28 April, 2015

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Janak Industries Pvt Ltd vs M/S Lakhani India Ltd on 28 April, 2015
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                      CHANDIGARH

                                                            CP No.133 of 2012 (O&M)
                                                            Date of decision : 28.04.2015


           Janak Industries Pvt. Ltd.

                                                                                ...Petitioner

                                                   Versus

           M/s Lakhani India Ltd.

                                                                              ...Respondent

           CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL


           Present:            Mr. R.L. Bhatia, Advocate
                               for the petitioner.

                               ****

           AMIT RAWAL, J. (Oral)

In view of the order dated 21.04.2015 passed in CP No.159 of

2013 titled as M/s Jaimurty Minerals & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s

Lakhani India Pvt. Ltd., wherein winding up petition filed by the petitioner

company has been admitted and the Official Liquidator has been appointed

Provisional Liquidator of the respondent company, present petition is

disposed of as infructuous, however, with a liberty to the petitioner to get

the same revived in case the respondent-company comes out of liquidation.

           28.04.2015                                             (AMIT RAWAL)
           pawan                                                    JUDGE




PAWAN KUMAR
2015.04.29 15:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
 

Nirmal Singh vs Nirmal Singh on 16 February, 2015

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmal Singh vs Nirmal Singh on 16 February, 2015
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
            CHANDIGARH

                                   Civil Revision No.6925 of 2014
                                   DATE OF DECISION: February 16,2015

            Nirmal Singh


                                                             ....Petitioner


                                   versus


            Hardial Singh

                                                             .....Respondent

            CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

            Present:               Mr.G.N.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.


            RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for

withdrawal of the petition.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

February 16, 2015 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
KD JUDGE

KAMAL DEEP SEHRA
2015.02.19 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court. Chandigarh

Des Raj Real Estates Pvt Ltd vs Des Raj Real Estates Pvt Ltd on 27 January, 2015

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Des Raj Real Estates Pvt Ltd vs Des Raj Real Estates Pvt Ltd on 27 January, 2015
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                             AT CHANDIGARH


                                                  CWP No. 17228 of 2000
                                                  Date of decision:-27.1.2015


           Des Raj Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.

                                                                   ...Petitioner

                                            Versus

           Union Territory, Chandigarh and another

                                                                   ...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA

Present:- Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate
for the respondents.

HEMANT GUPTA J.(Oral)

For orders see CWP No.17226 of 2000 titled ‘Prem Grover and

another vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another’ decided on even date.





                                                              ( HEMANT GUPTA )
                                                                   JUDGE



           January 08, 2015                                   ( HARI PAL VERMA )
           Vijay Asija                                              JUDGE




VIJAY ASIJA
2015.01.30 14:34

I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Alka And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 August, 2014

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Alka And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 August, 2014
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                            CHANDIGARH

                                                      CRM-M-23022 of 2014
                                                      Date of Decision: 19.08.2014

              Alka and another

                                                                         ......Petitioners
                                                Vs.


              State of Haryana and others
                                                                        .........Respondents

              CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN


              Present:         Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate,
                               for the petitioners.

                               Mr. Amit Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana,
                               for respondents No. 1 to 3


                                    *****

              MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)

Reply by way of affidavit of Rajesh Kumar, HPS, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Law and Order, Hisar has been filed on behalf of

respondents No. 1 to 3. Same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been

supplied to the counsel for the petitioner.

In view of the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3, learned

counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition may be

dismissed as withdrawn.

Ordered accordingly.

(MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN)
JUDGE
August 19, 2014
nitin

NITIN
2014.08.20 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

Satish And Others vs Om Parkash And Others on 1 August, 2014

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish And Others vs Om Parkash And Others on 1 August, 2014
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                           AT CHANDIGARH

                                       Regular Second Appeal No.2609 of 2011 (O&M)
                                       Date of decision: 01.08.2014

                      Satish and others                                     ... Appellants

                                                    versus


                      Om Parkash and others                                 .... Respondents

                      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
                                          ----

                      Present:     Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate,
                                   for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate,
                                   for the appellants.
                                                      ----

                      K.Kannan, J. (Oral)

The case is of the year 2011 and I find on every previous

hearing, there have been pleas for adjournment. Today also, there is

a request for adjournment. I decline the request and dismiss the

appeal.

(K.KANNAN)
JUDGE
01.08.2014
sanjeev

Kumar Sanjeev
2014.08.02 11:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Raju And Others vs State Of Haryana on 13 December, 2013

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raju And Others vs State Of Haryana on 13 December, 2013
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                             AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                    CRM M-41351 of 2013
                                                     Date of Decision : December 13, 2013

                         Raju and others
                                                                              .....Petitioners
                                                       VERSUS
                         State of Haryana
                                                                             .....Respondent

                         CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN

                         Present :   Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate

                                     Mr. Amit Rana, Deputy A.G., Haryana

                         T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

At the outset, counsel for the petitioners prays for

withdrawing the petition with liberty to the petitioners to move the

Court of Sessions in the first instance for the grant of bail during

the pendency of the trial of the case.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforementioned.




                                                                        ( T.P.S. MANN )
                         December 13, 2013                                    JUDGE
                         ajay-1




Kumar-I Ajay
2013.12.16 11:09

I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

The Improvement Trust vs The Land Acquisition Tribunal And … on 30 August, 2013

Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Improvement Trust vs The Land Acquisition Tribunal And … on 30 August, 2013
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


               C.W.P. No.2633 of 2013
               Date of decision: August 30, 2013


               The Improvement Trust, Faridkot
                                                                                 ... Petitioner(s).
                                                        Vs.
               The Land Acquisition Tribunal and another
                                                                                 ... Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present: Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondents.

Surinder Gupta, J

For order see C.W.P. No. 9250 of 2012 (Ritu vs. State of Punjab

and others).




                                         (Surya Kant)                            (Surinder Gupta)
                                           Judge                                       Judge



               August 30, 2013
               deepak




Deepak Kumar
2013.09.23 18:09

I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document which has been
signed by the Hon’ble Bench
High Court, Chandigarh

Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 August, 2013

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 August, 2013
            C.W.P. No.1660 of 2011                                                   -1-



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                                      *****

                                                        C.W.P. No.1660 of 2011
                                                        Date of Decision: 05.08.2013


            Pawan Kumar                                                 .....Petitioner
                                                      Versus
            State of Haryana and others                                 .....Respondents


            CORAM:             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
                               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN

            Present:           Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate,
                               for the petitioner.

                               Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate,
                               for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

            MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J.

Petitioner in the instant writ petition, under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus to

direct the respondents to deliver to him possession of Plot No.126, Sector

R-II at Model Town Kalanwali, District Sirsa, as per the size given in the

letter of allotment dated 15.05.2003 (Annexure P-1).

Facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the

petitioner was allotted a residential plot bearing No.126, Sector R-II at

Model Town Kalanwali, District Sirsa, measuring 20 X 5.50 = 110 Square

Meters, vide letter of allotment dated 15.05.2003 (Annexure P-1) but

when physical possession of the plot was given to him, vide possession

certificate dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-2), size of the plot was found to

be 15.75 X 8.50, i.e., 86.625 Square Meters (hereinafter referred to as

‘the plot in question’). Several representations made by the petitioner,

on having remained unsuccessful, he served upon the respondents a legal

Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.08.19 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
C.W.P. No.1660 of 2011 -2-

notice dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure P-3). This notice also failed to evoke

response from the respondents leaving the petitioner with no option but

to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of the instant

writ petition.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent

Nos.2 and 3, the only contesting respondents, wherein facts as stated

above, have been admitted but it has been added that allotment of the

plot in question was made in favour of the petitioner on the basis of

drawing No.677 dated 15.11.1998, wherein area of the plot was shown as

110 Square Meters but at the time of approval of the layout plan on

24.03.2006, the area of the plot was found to be 86.625 Square Meters

and accordingly, possession of that plot measuring 86.625 Sq. Meters was

delivered to the petitioner.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record.

It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that a plot of the size

of 20 X 5.50 square meters or say measuring 110 Square Meters having

been allotted to him, vide letter of allotment dated 15.05.2003 (Annexure

P-1) and he, having deposited the requisite amount, i.e., 25% of the cost

of the plot, the respondents are duty bound to deliver possession of a plot

of the size of 110 Square Meters to him.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3, on the other hand, have exhibited

their inability to accede to demand of the petitioner in view of the fact

that, on demarcation, the area of the plot was found to be 86.625 square

meters and possession of that plot has been delivered to the petitioner.

A perusal of letter of allotment dated 15.05.2003 (Annexure

P-1) reveals that it was clearly stipulated therein that the area of the plot

Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.08.19 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
C.W.P. No.1660 of 2011 -3-

was tentative and it was subject to adjustment in accordance with the

actual measurement at the time of delivery of possession. Petitioner

accepted the letter of allotment with open eyes and, as such, cannot be

heard to say that possession of 110 Square Meters plot only is to be

delivered to him. It is the definite plea of the respondents that in the

drawing No.677 dated 15.11.1998, area of the plot in question was

shown as 110 Square Meters and on its basis it was so mentioned in the

letter of allotment but when the area was demarcated for the purpose of

approval of the drawing, the plot in question was found to be measuring

86.625 square meters. The petitioner has accepted possession of that

plot having size of 86.625 Square Meters, vide certificate of possession

(Annexure P-2) without any objection or reservation. It would be

apposite to refer to certificate of possession (Annexure P-2), which gives

demarcation of the plot of 15.75 X 8.50 Meters or say 86.625 Square

Meters. The petitioner has made the following endorsement on the said

letter of possession:-

“I Pawan Kumar s/o Sh. Parkash Chand the allottee
have taken the possession of the Plot No.126 Sector R-2
Urban Estate M.T. Kalanwali as per above dimensions allotted
to me vide Estate Officer HUDA allotment letter No.4449
dated 15/05/03.

I undertake to follow the conditions as laid down in the
allotment letter, Provisions of HUDA Act, 1977, and HUDA
(Erection of Building) Regulation 1979 with the latest
amendments.

Further I have seen the plot and agree to accept the
possession. I will given at least one week notice to the Estate
Officer before actually starting the construction.”

In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be allowed to turn

Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.08.19 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
C.W.P. No.1660 of 2011 -4-

around and say that he is entitled to possession of the plot of size of 110

Square Meters, only.

In spite of this, vide order dated 21.05.2013 passed by this

Court, counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 sought time to seek

instructions if an alternative plot could be allotted to the petitioner but on

16.07.2013, he expressed inability of the aforesaid respondents to deliver

possession of an alternative plot. However, the learned counsel for

respondent Nos.2 and 3 stated that the said respondents are ready to

adjust the excess price paid by the petitioner.

In these circumstances, no mandate can be issued to the

respondents to deliver possession to the petitioner of a plot measuring

110 square meters but the respondents are directed to calculate the

excess amount paid by the petitioner and refund the same to the

petitioner along with interest, as per extant rules, within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is dismissed with the above directions,

leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




            (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)                               (MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN)
                     JUDGE                                              JUDGE


            05.08.2013
            adhikari




Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.08.19 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
 

Varinder Kumar vs Vijay Kumar Sharma (Billa) And … on 24 May, 2013

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varinder Kumar vs Vijay Kumar Sharma (Billa) And … on 24 May, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                  CRM No.M-19623 of 2012 (O&M)
                                  Date of decision: 24.05.2013.

Varinder Kumar


                                                    ......Petitioner
                       Versus


Vijay Kumar Sharma (Billa) and another


                                                  .......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA


Present:         Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

                 Mr. Jashanpreet Singh, Advocate for
                 respondent No.1.

                 Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

                      ****
SABINA, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he

may be permitted to withdraw the petition to enable the petitioner to

file an appropriate application for leave to appeal in view of the

decision of the Full Bench given by this Court in CRM-790-MA of

2010 (O&M) titled as M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. Versus M/s. Atma Tube

Produces Ltd. and others.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(SABINA)
JUDGE
May 24, 2013
sandeep sethi

Iqbal Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 February, 2012

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Iqbal Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 February, 2012
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


                                         R.F.A. No. 7330 of 2011 (O&M)
                                            (L.A.C. No.58LA of 2008)


Iqbal Singh and another
                                                        ...... Appellants
                              Versus
State of Haryana and others
                                                       .... Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Present: Mr. Praveen Bhadu, Advocate
for the land owners.

Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

RAJESH BINDAL J.

For orders, see detailed reasons recorded in a separate order

passed today in R.F.A. No. 1035 of 2008, titled as Gurmeet Singh and

others Versus The State of Haryana and others.



                                                 (RAJESH BINDAL)
28.02.2012                                          JUDGE
sarita