Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgements & Laws

Expression "District Magistrate" and the "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate" as appearing in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act shall deem to mean and include Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

2022-07-28T18:46:00.002+05:30

Rejection of candidature - RPF Constable - Candidate has used different language for filling up of the application form and the OMR answer book, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected.

2022-07-26T18:54:00.001+05:30

Prosecution can lead evidence only in accordance with the charge framed by the trial court - Where a higher charge is not framed for which there is evidence, the accused is entitled to assume that he is called upon to defend himself only with regard to the lesser offence

2022-07-26T18:52:00.003+05:30

sclaw.in

It would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in the Court – Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 392 of IPC is set aside.

2022-07-24T18:52:00.002+05:30

Punjab Excise - the role attributed, the nature and gravity of the offence, the stage of the case as well as the period of custody already undergone by the petitioners, Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petitions -- Petitioners admitted to regular bail.

2022-07-24T14:00:00.002+05:30

Attempt to murder – Even the injuries are on the non-vital parts of the body and the weapons claimed to have been used in the occurrence are blunt weapons - Bail granted

2022-07-24T13:42:00.002+05:30

NDPS interim bail - Superintendent, District Jail directed to ensure that the petitioner is taken in custody to the venue of Rasam Pagri/Bhog on 24.06.2022 by 10:00 AM and shall ensure that he is brought back to the jail premises by or before 5:00 PM on the same day itself

2022-07-24T13:37:00.002+05:30

Live in relationship - Protection granted - but adhering to its fundamental duty of guarding their lives. Thus, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, it shall be appropriate that the concerned Superintendent of Police, SHO, or any officer to whom such powers have been delegated or have been authorized in this regard, provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for one week

2022-07-24T13:32:00.002+05:30

Cheating – Criminal breach of trust -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct – directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 apply - Bail granted

2022-07-24T13:25:00.007+05:30

DB - Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab to decide the stay application(s) afresh expeditiously, preferably within a period of 15 days - - status quo shall be maintained.

2022-07-24T13:20:00.001+05:30

Challan without FSL - Default bail – Life of default bail - Bail granted State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/modification of the order

2022-07-24T13:12:00.002+05:30

aboutphlaw.com

Arms Act, 1959 Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.394 & S.397-Evidence Act, 1872, S.9.

2016-07-05T22:02:00.001+05:30

S.25—Robbery—Threat with knife—identification of accused—Complainant identified only one accused out of four accused-No other witness was examined-No Test Identification Parade was conducted-No other evidence against rest of three accused-Unidentified accused person were rightly acquitted- Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.394 & S.397-Evidence Act, 1872, S.9.;;

Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors. : 2016(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1010

Civil & Criminal Proceedings

2016-07-05T22:00:00.001+05:30

Damages-Claim for damages and loss due to physical assault by policeman-The judgment in the criminal case cannot govern the determination of the matter in civil suit when the plaintiff-respondent has led cogent and convincing evidence to prove the plea raised by him in the plaint.;;

Roshan Singh & Ors. v. Harpal Singh : 2016(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1338

S.5 & S.27-Licenced Weapon

2016-07-05T19:10:00.001+05:30

S.5 & S.27-Licenced Weapon-Opening fire in the area to scare the aggressors does not fall under the mischief of Section 5 of the Arms Act;;

Piara Singh v. State of Punjab : 2016(1) Law Herald (P&H) 696

Arms Act, 1959 S.4-Right to Religion-Wearing of Kirpan

2016-07-05T19:04:00.000+05:30

Sec 4-Right to Religion-Wearing of Kirpan-ln recognition of the fundamental rights of the Sikhs to wear and carry kirpans as part of the profession of Sikh religion, the Kirpans carried or possessed by Sikhs are exempted from the provisions of Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959-This exemption applies to all parts of India where Section 4 applies-Thus, no licence is required for a Sikh to wear or carry a kirpan-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 25,;;

Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana : 2016(2) Law Herald (P&H) 971

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.256 - Acquittal - Non appearance of complainant

2016-07-05T18:06:00.004+05:30

2016(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 717 (S.C.)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE & AMITAVAROY, JJ.

Criminal Appeal Nos.184 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.6209 of 2011), D/ 29.02.2016.

VKBhat

Vs GRavi Kishore & Anr.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.256—Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Non appearance of complainant - Dismissal in default - Amounts to acquittal as contemplated u/s 256 Cr.P.C.

Having held as above the court granted permission to complainant to pursue remedy of appeal as the revision filed by the complainant was not and only appeal was maintainable.

"9. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally in Second Revision Petition as well as the judgment passed by the High Court upholding the same. We do not intend to give any further comments in the matter.

10. However, observing the amount involved in this case, we only grant liberty to respondent No.l to take such steps as may be advised, in accordance with the provisions available in law and to proceed with the matter before the appropriate forum within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed."

Arbitration Act, 194O

2016-07-05T18:00:00.000+05:30

Award—Non-speaking order—The Arbitrator is not required to give reasons for his award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 unless the contract itself provides that the arbitrator shall give reasons and the arbitral reference makes it imperative—Therefore, award cannot be faulted on failure to give reasons.:;

H.S. Tuli and Sons Builders (P) Ltd. (M/s) v. Union of India : 2016(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1073 :

Allotment of plot

2016-07-05T17:55:00.000+05:30

Oustee Quota-Eligibility ~The acquired land must be of the oustee-!n other words, only those lands which a person owned at the time of acquisition can be taken into consideration—The ownership could indeed be acquired in any manner including by purchase or by inheritance.;:

Gorakh Nath v. State of Punjab & Ors. : 2016(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1195 (DB

Allotment of plot

2016-07-05T17:51:00.002+05:30

Eligibility—The expression 'applicant' shall also include and represent a 'spouse', for they are intertwined for the purposes of allotment of house sites.;;

Manju S, Gupta (Mrs.) v. State of Haryana : 2016(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1273 (DB)

Allotment of plot

2016-07-05T17:50:00.004+05:30

Deemed Cancellation-Allotment letter sent by authorities was not responded by allottee-Before expiry of 30 days from alleged date of delivery of allotment letter, allottee had written to authorities that allotment letter be issued at the earliest-Authorities replied that it has been already issued and time has elapsed for deposit of initial 15% therefore, allotment is deemed to be canceled-Held; conduct of petitioner exhibits that he was awaiting forma! allotment and was ready and willing to perform his part of contract—Authorities could always issue another copy of allotment letter to the petitioner and require him to comply with the terms—In the present case, there is fair presumption that petitioner never received the allotment letter-Authorities had also not issued any formal cancellation letter which shows that they themselves were not sure whether letter was delivered or not-Authorities directed to issue formal letter of allotment.;;

Ashish Yadav v. State of Haryana & Or , : 2016(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1310 (DB) :

Allotment of plot

2016-07-05T17:49:00.000+05:30

Cancellation Order-Power of Attorney-Plot allotted to original allottee was resumed due to non-payment of dues-After resumption order allottee appointed a GPAfor pursuing the remedies available as per law-GPA got resumption order set aside on payment on basis of current market price-Thereafter, GPA got sale deed executed in favour of petitioner-Sale deed and allotment letter were executed by authority in the name of petitioner-Thereafter, authority cancelled the allotment on the ground that original allottee and GPA had entered into connivance to commit fraud-Impugned order set aside-Held; GPA was not the beneficiary in any way-He was appointed only to facilitate the proceedings before authorities as he was friend of original allottee and local resident-No consideration ever passed from GPA to allottee-Transaction held to be bonafide-Petitioner held to be bona fide purchaser for consideration—Cancellation order set aside.;;

Veena Rani v. State of Haryana : 2016(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1288 (DB)

Section 405 - Ingredients of offence - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 420 - Ingredients of offence

2016-07-04T18:34:00.000+05:30

(2002) CriLJ 2125

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

SINGLE BENCH

SMT. SEEMA — Appellant

Vs.

SATISH SACHDEVA AND ANOTHER — Respondent

( Before : J.S. Khehar, J )

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7284-M of 2000

Decided on : 03-01-2002

· Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 405, 406, 420

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 405 - Ingredients of offence - Non - entrustment of property to accused - To constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust it is essential to prove first of all that the accused was entrusted with some property or with any dominion or power over it. It has to be established further that in respect of the property entrusted, there was dishonest misappropriation, or dishonest conversion, or dishonest use, or disposal in violation of a provision of law. So far as the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner are concerned, it is not even the case of the complainant himself that petitioner had been entrusted the amount in the chit fund in any manner directly or indirectly. It is also not the case of the complainant that there was any agreement between the complainant and petitioner in respect of the money deposited by him in the chit fund. It is, therefore, obvious that the ingredients of the offence under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code are clearly not made out against petitioner.

Hence, the order of the Judicial Magistrate summoning petitioner is liable to be set aside.

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 420 - Ingredients of offence - Absence of dishonest inducement - Before an offence of cheating dishonestly under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, it is necessary to establish that the accused must have cheated or dishonestly induced a person to deliver property or a valuable security. Even in the complaint, if taken on its face value and accepted as correct, it is not alleged that the petitioner accused 'S' ever induced the complainant to enroll as a member of the chit fund established by 'S' (who is admittedly her brother). Merely because 'S' is alleged to have purchased certain articles from the amount deposited by the complainant at the time of marriage of the petitioner 'S', would not make any difference insofar as the offence contemplated under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, insofar as 'S' is concerned.

Hence, the order of the Judicial Magistrate summoning petitioner is liable to be set aside.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Vineet Sharma, for the Appellant;

Cases Referred

Final Result : Allowed

ORDER

J.S. Khehar, J.—Satish Sachdeva (respondent No. 1 herein) made a complaint dated 12-6-1999 to the Superintendent of Police. Amritsar City-II, alleging that Sham Sunder son of Banarai Dass, started a chit fund company under the name and style of M/s. S. Finance, G.T. Road, Near Bus Stand. Amritsar. He claimed that he had enrolled himself as a member of the Chit Fund and made regular contribution of Rs. 10,000/-every month on account of which he was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-on 30-9-1998. Despite repeated requests made by him to the aforesaid Sham Sunder, the amount had not been returned. The complainant, on the basis of the aforesaid facts, alleged in his aforesaid complaint that he had been made a member of the chit fund fraudulently by Sham Sunder so as to dishonestly cheat him for personal monetary gains. It was also alleged that the amount deposited by the complainant in the chit fund was dishonestly misappropriated by the aforesaid Sham Sunder. A compromise was entered into between the complainant Satish Sachdeva and the accused Sham Sunder on 22-6-1999 wherein Sham Sunder agreed to pay the complainant Satish Sachdeva all outstanding dues.

2. It is the case of the complainant Satish Sachdeva that despite the aforesaid compromise, Sham Sunder had failed to honour the commitment made despite repeated requests. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that Satish Sachdeva made a complaint under Sections 405/406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, on 27-9-1999. In the instant complaint Satish Sachdeva, the complainant alleges that on account of the deposits made by him, he was to be released a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 30-6-1998, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 30-8-1998 and finally a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 25-9-1998 as a consequence of his contribution to three chit funds. It is alleged in the aforesaid complaint that despite his contributions, Sham Sunder accused had failed to release the payments to him. Paragraph 6 of the complaint which is relevant to the present controversy is being extracted hereunder :-

6. That the above amounts along with amounts of other subscribers were utilised by Shri Sham Sunder on the following assets :-

1. Renovation of H. No. 231, Tilak Nagar, Amritsar.

2. Fitting of furniture in the Drawing Room of the H. No. 231. Tilak Nagar, Amritsar.

3. Renovation of factory at Bharat Nagar, Amritsar.

4. Marriage of Seema d/o Shri Banarasi Das for the purchase of Refrigerator, Colour Television, Scooter etc.

5. That the above premises bearing H. No. 231, Tilak Nagar, Amritsar, is in possession of Shri Sham Sunder, Banarasi Das, Naresh Kumar and Deepak Kumar and the factory at Bharat Nagar Amritsar is possessed by Shri Banarsi Das, Shri Sham Sunder and Shri Deepak Kumar and Refrigerator, Colour Television and Scooter are in possession of Smt. Seema.

On the basis of the complaint dated 27-9-1999, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, vide his order dated 3-11-1999, arrived at the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court accordingly summoned the accused to face the trial under the aforesaid sections. The order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, dated 3-11-1999 has been impugned through the instant petition by Smt. Seema daughter of Banarsi Das.

3. It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that the complainant had made no reference to her in his first complaint dated 12-6-1999 and reference made to her and the second complaint dated 27-9-1999 even if taken on its face value and accepted as correct would be insufficient to fulfil the ingredients constituting the offence under Sections 405 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code is being extracted hereunder :-

405. Criminal breach of trust :- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriate or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, of of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust.

A bare perusal of the aforesaid section leads to the conclusion that to constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust it is essential to prove first of all that the accused was entrusted with some property or with any dominion or power over it. It has to be estalished further that in respect of the property entrusted, there was dishonest misappropriation, or dishonest conversion, or dishonest use, or disposal in violation of the terms of entrustment or violation of a provision of law. So far as the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner-Smt. Seema are concerned, it is not even the case of the complainant himself that Smt. Seema had been entrusted the amount in the chit fund in any manner directly or indirectly. It is also not the case of the complainant that there was any agreement between the complainant and Smt. Seema in respect of the money deposited by him in the chit fund. It is, therefore, obvious that the ingredients of the offence u/s 405 of the Indian Penal Code are clearly not made out against Smt. Seema.

5. The impugned order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, requires her to be proceeed against u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid section is being extracted hereunder :-

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property :- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Before an offence of cheating dishonestly u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, it is necessary to establish that the accused must have cheated or dishonestly induced a person to deliver property or a valuable security. Even in the complaint, if taken on its face value and accepted as correct, it is not alleged that the petitioner-Smt. Seema ever induced the complainant Satish Sachdeva to enrol as a member of the chit fund established by Sham Sunder (who is admittedly her brother). Merely because Sham Sunder is alleged to have purchased certain articles from the amount deposited by the complainant-Satish Sachdeva at the time of marriage of the pe-titioner-Smt. Seema, would not make any difference insofar as the offence contemplated u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, insofar as Smt. Seema is concerned.

6. Since the two complaints made by the complainant do not disclose the commission of any offence either u/s 405 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioner, the order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, dated 3-11-1999, summoning her to face trial under the aforesaid sections is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. For the reasons recorded above, the order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, dated 3-11-1999, insofar as it relates to Smt. Seema petitioners, is accordingly quashed.

2016-07-02T22:26:00.001+05:30

THE REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016

(16 of 2016)

[25th March, 2016]

An Act to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for regulation and promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, or sale of real estate project, in an efficient and transparent manner and to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate sector and to establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal and also to establish the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from the decisions, directions or orders of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the adjudicating officer and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-seventh Year of the Republic of India as follows:—

CHAPTER I

PRELIMINARY

1. Short title, extent and commencement.—(1) This Act may be called the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint: Provided that different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision.

2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) "adjudicating officer" means the adjudicating officer appointed under sub-section (1) of section 71;

(b) "advertisement" means any document described or issued as advertisement through any medium and includes any notice, circular or other documents or publicity in any form, informing persons about a real estate project, or offering for sale of a plot, building or apartment or inviting persons to purchase in any manner such plot, building or apartment or to make advances or deposits for such purposes;

(c) "agreement for sale" means an agreement entered into between the promoter and the allottee;

(d) "allottee" in relation to a real estate project, means the person to whom a plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, has been allotted, sold (whether as freehold or leasehold) or otherwise transferred by the promoter, and includes the person who subsequently acquires the said allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise but does not include a person to whom such plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, is given on rent;

(e) "apartment" whether called block, chamber, dwelling unit, flat, office, showroom, shop, godown, premises, suit, tenement, unit or by any other name, means a separate and self-contained part of any immovable property, including one or more rooms or enclosed spaces, located on one or more floors or any part thereof, in a building or on a plot of land, used or intended to be used for any residential or commercial use such as residence, office, shop, showroom or godown or for carrying an any business, occupation, profession or trade, or for any other type of use ancillary to the purpose specified;

(f) "Appellate Tribunal" means the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal established under section 43;

(g) "appropriate Government" means in respect of matters relating to,— (i) the Union territory without Legislature, the Central Government; (ii) the Union territory of Puducherry, the Union territory Government; (iii) the Union territory of Delhi, the Central Ministry of Urban Development; (iv) the State, the State Government;

(h) "architect" means a person registered as an architect under the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972 (20 of 1972);

(i) "Authority" means the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under sub-section (1) of section 20;

(j) "building" includes any structure or erection or part of a structure or erection which is intended to be used for residential, commercial or for the purpose of any business, occupation, profession or trade, or for any other related purposes;

(k) "carpet area" means the net usable floor area of an apartment, excluding the area covered by the external walls, areas under services shafts, exclusive balcony or verandah area and exclusive open terrace area, but includes the area covered by the internal partition walls of the apartment; Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, the expression "exclusive balcony or verandah area" means the area of the balcony or verandah, as the case may be, which is appurtenant to the net usable floor area of an apartment, meant for the exclusive use of the allottee; and "exclusive open terrace area" means the area of open terrace which is appurtenant to the net usable floor area of an apartment, meant for the exclusive use of the allottee; (1) "Chairperson" means the Chairperson of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority appointed under section 21; (m) "commencement certificate" means the commencement certificate or the building permit or the construction permit, by whatever name

Damages--Malicious Prosecution--Suit for damages--Damages assessed, were for expenses incurred, as well as for mental agony suffered by plaintiff/respondents

2011-05-22T22:59:00.000+05:30

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1442
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 1785 of 2010 (O&M)
Gurmukh Singh & Anr.
v.
Bhagat Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 10/05/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate.
Damages--Malicious Prosecution--Suit for damages--Damages assessed, were for expenses incurred, as well as for mental agony suffered by plaintiff/respondents--It was not possible for plaintiff/respondents to lead evidence showing positive damage suffered due to mental agony--Therefore, for the mental agony there was no alternative with learned Courts, but assess damages on guess work, keeping in view status of the parties, and agony suffered--No interference. (Para 9)

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38--Permanent Injunction--Possession--Agreement to sell--Two Agreements to sell

2011-05-22T22:55:00.001+05:30

- 2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1441
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A.No.1827 of 2010 (O&M)
Magh Singh
v.
Balvir Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 13/05/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate.
Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38--Permanent Injunction--Possession--Agreement to sell--Two Agreements to sell do not contain a recital regarding handing over of possession to appellant--No other material to show that possession was ever with appellant--Suit for permanent injunction for possession of land on basis of two agreements to sell rightly dismissed. (Para 7)