Thursday,
January 31, 2002, Chandigarh, India
|
|
A clarification The Principal of St. Peter’s School, Sector 18, had paid Rs 1,000 as caution money to the complainant, a student, on April 4, 2001. As per the order announced by the consumers court on January 28, 2002, the Principal of the school has been directed to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on Rs 1,000 from August 14, 1997, to April 11, 2001, along with Rs 100 as expenses of litigation.
|
||
HIGH COURT Chandigarh, January 30 In a ruling, a Division Bench further ruled that as per the settled principles regarding the appreciation of evidence in cases of circumstantial evidence, it was also to be seen whether the circumstances were of a conclusive nature. The Bench, comprising Mr Justice Amar Bir Singh Gill and Mr Justice Swatanter Kumar, added that the circumstances so proved must also provide a chain of facts which were consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt and inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. The Judges also acquitted an Ambala resident, Sanjay Mittal, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional District and Sessions Judge after being held guilty of murdering Devinder Pal Singh. Cop’s bail plea
rejected
Mr Justice M.L. Singhal of the High Court dismissed the bail application filed by a constable in a murder case involving Punjab Police Inspector Gurmeet Singh alias Pinki. The accused — constable Simerjit Singh — was deployed as gunman with the inspector at the time of incident. He, along with the other accused, were booked by the Punjab Police for murder and other offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 336, 148, 149 and 225, IPC. Seeking grant of bail, his counsel had contended that certain other accused in the case had been released. After hearing arguments, Mr Justice Singhal observed: “Since the Bench had declined bail to Simerjit Singh through a detailed order considering all the pros and cons of the case, this Bench cannot turn around and say that he should be allowed bail now. So his prayer for bail is declined”. Notice to Punjab
on disqualification A question of law as to whether the degree of LL.B. is a graduate degree or not was raised in a writ petition filed by Parminder Singh, Inspector, Municipal Council, Dharamkot, who had challenged the order passed by the Director, Local Government, Punjab, whereby, he was disqualified for the post of Inspector on the ground that he was not second class graduate as required for appointment. A Division Bench comprising Mr Justice N.K. Sodhi and Mr Justice Jasbir Singh, issued notices to the state Punjab and Director, Local Government, for May 2. |
Eject occupant, says Judge Chandigarh, January 30 Handing down a 29-page judgement, Mrs Prashar ruled that Mr Balwinderjit Singh was in illegal possession of the house. “When it is established that defendant No 1 (Mr Balwinderjit Singh) is in illegal possession of the premises on the ground floor of the house in dispute , he is not only liable to be ejected from the same, rather he is bound to pay use and occupation charges at the market rent,”she observed. She ruled that in her opinion the amount of Rs 10,000 per month assessed by
the trial court as use and occupation charges to be paid by Mr Balwinderjit Singh with effect from October 8, 1997, is quite appropriate and justified. Dismissing the appeal filed by Mr Balwinderjit Singh against the order of the trial court, Mrs Prashar ordered that Mrs Neelam Gautam, owner of the house, be paid litigation costs assessed at Rs 31,632.50 paise. Mrs Gautam pleaded before the court that Mr Balwinderjit Singh had been in illegal possession of the house Since October 8, 1997. Disbelieving the claim of Mr Balwinderjit Singh that he had been a tenant since October 1, 1993, Mrs Prashar observed “Ït is a well-known saying that to conceal one lie one has to take shelter of hundred other lies.” The only rent receipts produced by him are for the period October, 1993 to December , 1994. Not a single rent receipt of any subsequent month could be produced by Mr Balwinderjit Singh. He alleged that the house in dispute was mortgaged by Mr Sanjeev Salwan with Mr Sachin Kumar and Bhagwant Kumar to whom he had been paying rent thereafter. However, no mortgage deed could be produced, Not even one rent receipt executed by the alleged mortgagee could be placed on record. Interestingly, the mortgagees had given an affidavit to the S.S.P. of Chandigarh in which they testified that they had no concern in any manner with the ownership and possession of the house in dispute. |
RI in cheque bounce case Chandigarh, January 30 The complainant, Mr Anil Sharma, had stated that he along with the accused had started a joint business in Sector 17. The complainant had invested Rs 3 lakh in the business. However, after some time, it was mutually agreed upon that the entire business would be taken over by the accused. In pursuance to the agreement, the accused handed over a cheque for Rs 4,91,000 drawn on Haryana State Cooperative Bank Limited, Sector 20. The complainant alleged that thereafter he deposited the cheque in the bank for encashment on April 21, 1997, but the same was dishonoured on April 22, 1997, for lack of sufficient fund in the account of the accused. Thereafter the complainant deposited a cheque in the bank three more times but it was again dishonoured with the remark “fund insufficient”. Then the complainant filed the case in the court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused had prayed before the court that he was the first offender and was only bread-winner in the family, so lenient view may be taken against him. The UT Judicial Magistrate(First Class), Mr Naval Kumar, said in his order that “keeping in view the nature of offence, the age of the convict and other antecedents, I think it is not a fit case where the convict can be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act”. So the convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000. In default of payment of fine he would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. |
ESI decision on fixed allowance Chandigarh, January 30 However, reimbursement of conveyance expenses incurred for performing specific duty/journey, reimbursement of actual cost of conveyance on production of proof of expenditure and payment of certain amount for maintenance of vehicles etc shall not be treated as wages under Section 2(22) of ESI Act, according to Mr A.W. Khadgi, Regional Director. In view of these guidelines contribution of conveyance allowance is payable from the wages for the month of December, 2001, payable in January, 2002. |
CBI told to probe abduction case Chandigarh, January 30 Delivering the verdict, Mr Justice Goel directed the CBI to submit its report by May 27 next year. The judge also directed that the investigating agency could join the girl’s relatives in the probe. The 14-year-old girl was allegedly abducted on December 15, 2000, and the first information report in the matter was registered at Mani Majra police station on December 23. The police, after investigating the case, had, however, submitted an untraced report, according to the petitioner. |
Lok Adalat’s directive to XEN Chandigarh, January 30 |
Presenting the hilarious side of emotion Chandigarh, January 30 Staged jointly by Theatrewala and the Chandigarh Institute of Performing Arts (CIPA), the play managed to stir the audience every now and then. The plot revolved around three characters — Makhan Lal (played by Shyam Juneja), Ram Lal (played by KK Doda) and Sheela (played by Ranjit Kaur). Although the set and the manner of presentation had an ample scope of improvement, the characters did make a mark with a convincing dialogue delivery and an effortless rendering of emotions. Especially interesting was K.K. Doda, a retired Sessions Judge, who appeared absolutely uninhibited on stage today. Shyam Juneja in the role of a man humbled once, twice and thrice impresses fairly. The script deals with plain human emotions presented in the package of humour. It is about frequent squabbles between Sheela and Makhan Lal, who are basically in love. Love, however, remains dormant until the climax. Very often the two are seen arguing — sometimes to save their property stakes and sometimes to prove that the breed of their respective dogs is finer. Ultimately, the two get together amid confusion and laughter. |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 121 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |