January 2019
Permalink GalleryAccident—Income—Deceased was a labourer having family of 7 members—Wife on oath stated her husband was earning Rs.2500/- per month-Minimum wages payable at relevant time was Rs.2116/ – per month—Keeping in view that credibility of statement of claimant has not be demolished and deceased was supporting a large family, income of deceased taken as Rs.2500/- per month.
Permalink GalleryCivil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 151—Consolidation of Suit—Purpose of consolidating suits was to save time of the Court as well as parties—But where evidence had almost been concluded by the parties in the suits, no purpose would be served by consolidating the suits—Application held to be rightly dismissed.
Permalink GalleryEast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13–Eviction–Change in Stand–Expansion of Hospital—In the original petition, requirement was for construction of hall and canteen for indoor patients, whereas in the replication, it has been pleaded that it is required for outdoor patients—In evidence landlord has specifically pleaded the need for indoor and outdoor patients—Therefore, it cannot be held that landlord is changing its stand-Eviction directed
- Permalink Gallery
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13—Eviction—Bonafide Need—At some places, the landlord is asking for bonafide requirement of both the sons, whereas in some part of the evidence he is pleading requirement of only one son—Held; it cannot be held that bonafide requirement is not proved.
- Permalink Gallery
Accident–Special Diet-Disability @75%« Appellant remained under treatment for 6 months—A sum of Rs.2,000/- per month awarded for expenses for special diet. Transportation Charges- Disability @75%-Appellant contended that he had gone from his native village to hospital in city for 5 times by spending about Rs.1000/- per trip– Consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded
Permalink GallerySuccession Act, 1963, S.63~Will~Attesting Witness-Attesting Witnesses are required to put their signatures on the Will only after the executants of the will had affixed his signatures on the same–In present case, admittedly executant had put his thumb impression after the signatures were put by attesting witnesses—Will held to be not duly executed-Will discarded
December 2018
- Permalink Gallery
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.41 R.23—Remand of Case—Suit was based on legality of compromise entered between the parties—Matter was remanded back to be decided afresh on merits-Held; This implied that the question of consideration of compromise petition was required to be decided first- -It is for the simple reason that if the compromise was held to be legal and proper, there was no need to decide the second appeal on merits—In other words, the need to decide the second appeal on merits would have arisen only if the compromise would have been held illegal and not binding on the parties concerned—Matter remanded again to be decided afresh accordingly.
Permalink GalleryCriminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.300—Double Jeopardy—The whole basis of Section 300 (1) Cr.P.C. is that the person who was tried by a competent court, once acquitted or convicted, cannot be tried for the same offence—Where accused has not been tried nor was there a full fledged trial, then principles of’double jeopardy’ would not apply to the accused though earlier discharged
Permalink GalleryHigh Court directed DRT to decide S.A on merits-Parties were not put to notice by DRT–On date fixed DRT dismissed the S.A due to non appearance of counsel of applicant with observation that it was duty of counsel to be vigilant as matter was got restored on direction of High Court—Such reasons deprecated—DRT directed to decide SA on merits.
Permalink GalleryPunjab Land Revenue Rules, 1909, R. 15–Lambardar–Appointment of–Availability of Candidate—As per record petitioner is not permanent resident of the village and residing more often in city—Petitioner held to be rightly not appointed despite having more land than appointed candidate.
- Permalink Gallery
Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1909, R. 15–Lambardar–Appointment of–Availability of Candidate—As per record petitioner is not permanent resident of the village and residing more often in city—Petitioner held to be rightly not appointed despite having more land than appointed candidate.
Permalink GalleryTender Bid-Public Contract—Judicial Review—In matters of public contract the government has to act fairly and not treat the subject-matter of the contract as a largess to be distributed at its own whims and fancies, which again is impermissible as there has to be a supporting coherent policy even if discretion of the government has to be exercised
