Nominal IndexParo and others v. Mahindo 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 111Simarjit Kaur @ Simerjeet Kaur @ Simarjeet Kaur versus Maninder Kaur 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 112Rakesh Khanna @ Babbu v. Gulzari Lal and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 113Ankush Rawat v. Guru Nanak Education Trust and Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 114Novex Communications Private Limited v. Union of India and another2022 LiveLaw (PH) 115Amit v. State...
Nominal Index
Paro and others v. Mahindo 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 111
Simarjit Kaur @ Simerjeet Kaur @ Simarjeet Kaur versus Maninder Kaur 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 112
Rakesh Khanna @ Babbu v. Gulzari Lal and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 113
Ankush Rawat v. Guru Nanak Education Trust and Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 114
Novex Communications Private Limited v. Union of India and another2022 LiveLaw (PH) 115
Amit v. State of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 116
Mahavir singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 117
Vasu Syal v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 118
Parveen Mehta Versus Vishal Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 119
Rinku Singh Versus Union of India2022 LiveLaw (PH) 120
Munshi Ram versus Vidya Devi and Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 121
Case Title : Paro and others v. Mahindo
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 111
Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition against the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ferozepur via which petitioner's defense was struck off, held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC are directory in nature, however, the Courts must exercise their discretion to condone the delay in filing the written statement after exercising due circumspection and if it appears that the defendant has attempted to engage in dilatory tactics, the Courts should nip the same unhesitatingly. "The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC no doubt are directory in nature, however, at the same time the Courts must exercise their discretion to condone the delay, if any, in filing the written statement after exercising due circumspection and in case there appears to be an attempt on the part of the defendant to engage in dilatory tactics, the Courts should nip the same unhesitatingly", the Court observed. The bench comprising Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul while allowing the petition, noted that the petitioners were granted four opportunities to file their written statement, however, they failed to do so.
Case Title: Simarjit Kaur @ Simerjeet Kaur @ Simarjeet Kaur versus Maninder Kaur
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 112
Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Trial Court which instead of adjourning the case for plaintiff's evidence, fixed it inadvertently for rebuttal evidence, held that the plaintiff-respondent cannot be deprived of her valuable right of leading evidence in the affirmative on issues the onus of which was cast upon her, merely because the Court made a mistake while adjourning the matter. "Merely because an inadvertent mistake was caused by the Court while adjourning the matter the plaintiff-respondent cannot be deprived of her valuable right of leading evidence in the affirmative on issues the onus of which was cast upon her", the Court observed. The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin was dealing with the instant revision petition challenging the order whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner for rejection of the affidavit of the witness named Narjit Singh Dhillon was dismissed.
Case Title : Rakesh Khanna @ Babbu v. Gulzari Lal and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 113
Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order vide which the application preferred by the defendant no.1 (petitioner) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a suit for declaration of title was dismissed, held that at the time of contesting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the contents of the plaint are to be seen and not the contents of the application or any other pleadings. The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin observed, "It is trite that at the time of contesting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the contents of the plaint are to be seen and not those of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or any other pleadings."
4. Parties Are Bound By Statements Made By Their Counsel In Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Ankush Rawat v. Guru Nanak Education Trust and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 114
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that parties are bound by the statements made by their counsel in Court. The observation was made while disallowing a review application filed against an order on the ground of an 'error apparent'. The bench comprising Justice H.S. Madaan held that the counsel for the applicant had not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the applicant was trying to resile from the statement made by the earlier counsel and to re-argue the matter on merits, which is not permitted in law. It noted that the instant review application has been filed by the counsel who was neither the filing counsel nor the arguing counsel nor was he present at the time of passing of the impugned order.
Case Title: Novex Communications Private Limited v. Union of India and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 115
While quashing a public notice/letter exempting use of copyrighted sound recordings in marriage functions from liability, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the executive has no authority under the Copyright Act to clarify or interpret the applicability of the law through public notices. Thus, the executive cannot take away the right of a copyright owner to initiate proceedings for infringement of copyright. Justice Raj Mohan Singh observed that such public notice is also violative of the Doctrine of Separation of Power as it would lead to the executive usurping the legislative power of enactment and the judicial power of interpretation. The public notice also infringes the right of a copyright holder under Articles 13, 14 and Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. It seeks to abridge the protection granted by the copyright Act which is unsustainable, the Court said.
Case Title: Amit v. State of Haryana and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 116
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that Section 482 of CrPC confers extraordinary powers on High Court and empowers it to entertain applications not contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case the ends of justice require. The Court observed, "This section gives the power to this Court to entertain applications which are not contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the event, it is felt that the ends of justice will require that the Court can invoke the extraordinary powers which are to be exercised with restraint and not lightly." The bench comprising Justice Vivek Puri further held that when the Court is satisfied that its interference under inherent powers is required to meet the ends of justice, it ought to exercise such powers. The Court further added that inherent power vested under Section 482 should not be invoked as a matter of routine and it should only be invoked to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.
Case Title : Mahavir singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 117
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently allowed a writ petition whereby an employee of the Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam had sought that the daily wage service rendered by him till his services were regularized should be taken into consideration for computing his pensionary benefits. The bench comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi held the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970 have been adopted by the respondent-Nigam and according to Rule 3.17 of the said rules, daily wage services rendered by an employee prior to his/her regularization is to be treated as qualifying service for computing his/her pensionary benefits. It further noted that though the petitioner's services were terminated in the year 1982, the same was held to be bad by a Labour Court and the Petitioner was reinstated in service with back wages. Therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of counting his daily wage service as qualifying service for computing his pensionary benefits.
Case title - Vasu Syal v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 118
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday granted bail to a man arrested over an alleged inappropriate comment against Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji and his father which was offensive to the followers of the Sikh Religion. The Bench of Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu granted bail to one Vasu Syal as it noted that he is under custody since November 2021 and the investigation in the case is complete and challan has been filed. The Court also noted that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of upto three years and there is no apprehension that the petitioner may evade or otherwise interfere with the trial. Essentially, an FIR in the matter was lodged on the complaint of one Parvinder Singh alleging that one Anil Arora runs a page on Facebook wherein he has been uploading posts and messages on social and religious issues which instigates and causes division in Hindu-Sikh unity. Noting that the petitioner is in custody since November 13, 2021, the investigation in the case is complete and a challan has been filed and the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment upto three years, the Court granted him bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
Case Title: Parveen Mehta Versus Vishal Joshi
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 119
Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment acquitting respondent in Complaint Case of 2012, held that undisputed signatures of the respondent on the cheque in itself are not sufficient for conviction under Section 138 of the Act. The undisputed signatures of the respondent on the cheque in itself is not sufficient for conviction under Section 138 of the Act. The bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan while dismissing the application held that one of the ingredients under Section 138 of the Act is that the cheque was issued for discharge of a debt or other liability.
Case Title: Rinku Singh Versus Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 120
Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in NCB Crime case filed under provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 to the accused-petitioner who was involved in the smuggling of Commercial quantity of Heroin from Pakistan to India, held that based on the reply submitted by the NCB, the role and active involvement of the petitioner is apparent. Therefore, no ground is made out for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The bench comprising Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu observed, "From the reply aforesaid, the role and active involvement of the petitioner is apparent. In view thereof, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner." After analyzing the submission of the counsel for the petition and the reply submitted by the NCB, the court concluded that the present petitioner was actively involved in the conspiracy of transporting a commercial quantity of contraband from Pakistan to India and dismissed the appeal without granting the relief of anticipatory bail.
Case Title: Munshi Ram versus Vidya Devi and Another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 121
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it cannot embark on a roving and fishing enquiry to assist a party to collect evidence. The remarks were made while dealing with a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Rent Controller whereby the application for directing the respondents-landlord to produce relevant documents in their possession was dismissed. The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin observed, "The present petition is nothing but an endeavour to embark on an endeavour not relevant to the matter in dispute. A Court would not embark on a roving and fishing enquiry in order to assist a party to collect evidence." The Court observed, "The relevance of the documents especially the income tax returns eludes this Court. It is trite that what is required in law is that the Court below should record its satisfaction as to whether the documents are necessary or not. In the present case a categoric observation has been made that the tenant-petitioner is trying to collect evidence through the process of the Court which cannot be allowed."