CW / 13400 / 2021 (VIJAY DIXIT VS URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/11/2021 The present petition challenges the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat under Sec. 22C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. It was held that impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was just and valid. Writ petition dismissed with costs.
2
CMA / 1037 / 2021 (KAMAL VS VARSHA) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/11/2021 The present appeal arose seeking exemption of 6 months time period under Sec. 13B of Hindu Marriage Act. It was held that, on light of the consensus arrived between the parties, the impugned requirement under the provision be waived and decree of divorce be granted. Appeal quashed and set aside.
3
CW / 14494 / 2019 (BHAGWATI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SURATGARH VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/11/2021 The writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Subordinate Court in execution case ordering the civil imprisonment of the petitioner on the ground of incapacity to pay. It was held that as the capacity to pay is not established, impugned order was quashed and set aside. Present petition disposed off.
4
CRLW / 541 / 2021 (GULVEER VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/11/2021 The instant writ parole petition filed by the petitioner seeking to assail the recommendations by Committee which rejected his application for first parole. The parole petition was allowed with further clarification that parole applications from related convicts should not be rejected and instead should be kept pending until the related convicts have availed the parole facility- if the reason for rejection was solely simultaneous grant of parole to the related convicts. Parole Petition Allowed.
5
CRLAD / 232 / 2019 (MAHENDRA SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/09/2021 The appeal was preferred by the victim praying for a direction to convert the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the respondents accused by the trial court into capital punishment. The appeal was found to be not maintainable while relying on the proviso of Sec. 372 Cr.P.C. wherein victim has been given 3 specific circumstances excluding the right to question the judgment of a criminal court on the count of inadequacy of sentence. Appeal dismissed.
1
CSA / 157 / 2003 (RUKNUDDIN VS M/S FIRM ASAN DAS LAL CHAND) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/11/2021 The appellant-plaintiff filed this second appeal seeking possession of property let out on rent. The Subordinate and the Appellate Court dismissed the suit/appeal on the ground that the appellant-plaintiff failed to prove his bonafide need for property. It was thereby held that only the appellant-plaintiff would be the best judge of his bonafide need and the Court cannot examine the existence of the same. Hence second appeal allowed and relief thereby granted.
2
CMA / 2855 / 2017 (M/S SHASTRINAGAR GAS SERVICE VS INDIAN OIL COR LTD AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/10/2021 The appellant had filed the appeal against order dated 13th February, 2017 passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Reliance was placed on various judgments where it was held that the Arbitrator has all the powers to decide all the disputes and differences arising between the parties and the dealership of a claimant can be restored. The appeal was hence dismissed.
3
CRLMB / 9155 / 2019 (SUNIL KALLANI S/O HARI KISHAN KALLANI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/10/2021 The present bail application filed under S. 438 Cr.P.C. was held to be not maintainable on the grounds that the person was already arrested and is presently in custody of police or judicial custody in relation to another criminal case which may be for similar offence or for different offences. Thus the concept of anticipatory bail as envisaged in the Code would stand frustrated. Application dismissed.
4
CRLMP / 3646 / 2021 (KAMLESH KUMAR KHANDELWAL S/O SHRI RAM AVTAR KHANDELWAL, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/10/2021 The criminal petition had been filed for quashing of an FIR, on the ground that subsequent FIR on same facts is not maintainable and once the final report submitted in the first FIR is subject matter of proceedings, second FIR cannot be registered on same facts. It was held that second FIR can be maintainable when there are different versions or discovery is made on factual foundations and such discovery may be made by the Police Authorities, at a subsequent stage. Petition Dismissed.
5
CW / 10544 / 2021 (MAHAVEER INTERNATIONAL APEX VS MAHAVEER INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/10/2021 On completion of lease period, landlord (Respondent) issued notice, requiring tenant (Petitioner) to hand over possession-Petitioner did not give possession-Respondent filed application u/s 18,Rent Control Act-Petitioner contended eviction notice not u/s 9,the Act-Tribunal ordered in favor of Respondent-Held-Civil Courts to deal with any matter, case or dispute between petitioner and respondent is required to be tried and decided by the Rent Tribunal only-Petition Dismissed
