HIGH COURT
HFC allowed to withdraw notice
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, May 7
In a statement before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, counsel for Haryana Financial Corporation today sought permission to withdraw a notice issued to Sandeep Ceramics Private Limited — a company owned by the son of Justice A.S. Garg, one-member-commission appointed by the Punjab Government for looking into the allegations of corruption of the previous government. The notice was issued on April 17 for taking into possession on May 8 collateral security — a house in Faridabad’s Sector 9 pledged with the financial corporation. Arguing before Mr Justice V.K. Bali of the High Court, counsel added that they should be allowed to withdraw the notice with liberty to issue a fresh one in accordance with law. After hearing counsel for the Corporation, Mr Justice Bali ordered that it would be open for the firm to file another application as and when fresh notice was issued. Mr Justice Bali further directed HFC to comply with the decree passed by the courts below and to give, within a month, the complete account of arrears that may be due. Giving details of the notice, the firm, in an application, had earlier stated that as per the notice certain amount was outstanding towards a term loan. Counsel for the applicant had added that this was in contravention to the mandate of the judgement and decree passed in 1999 vide which the financial corporation was directed to prepare a fresh statement of accounts after excluding Rs 25 lakh converted into equity share capital. He had added that the applicant would suffer an irreparable loss if the corporation was not restrained from taking over the possession of the collateral security. Going into the background of the case, he had stated that the firm had taken a term loan of Rs 72.54 lakh from the corporation. The amount was to be paid within 10 years, but notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was not a defaulter, the corporation decided to recall the entire loan amount. A notice in this regard was challenged by the applicant by filing a civil suit against the corporation following which a specific direction was issued to the corporation restraining it from taking further action on the basis of the notice. An appeal against the orders too was dismissed by Jhajjar’s Additional District Judge. Drug price
A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the action of the Union of India and other respondents in fixing the price of diosmin — a drug for treating piles — was arbitrary and unjust. Delivering the verdict, the Bench, comprising Mr Justice Jawahar Lal Gupta and Mr Justice N.K. Sud, observed: “The petitioners complain that the action of the respondents in fixing the price of diosmin vide order dated July 20, 1998, and ordering their prosecution for not following the orders, was arbitrary, illegal and unfair.... The decision was taken in 1995 to include diosmin in the first schedule and to subject it to the price control order without following the prescribed criterion as laid down in the policy issued by the Central government itself. Since the relevant facts have not been taken into consideration, the decision to include the drug in the first schedule cannot be sustained”. In their detailed order, the Judges added: “It is true that two wrongs will never make a right. It is also true that the action against the petitioner-firm cannot be annulled merely because the respondents have failed to move against others. However, the facts are self eloquent. It is clear that initially no action was initiated. When the petitioners pointed out, the respondents have moved at a slow pace. Why this different treatment? There is no answer. We are left with a definite impression that the respondents have not been fair in their dealing with the petitioners”. Bail plea
Mr Justice M.L. Singhal of the High Court on Tuesday referred to another Bench a petition filed by Punjabi University’s former Vice Chancellor Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia seeking directions to the state of Punjab and other respondents to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in a cheating case. Mr Ahluwalia was apprehending arrest in a first information report registered by the police at Patiala under Sections 420, 415 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, besides under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the FIR, registered on the complaint of the members of the Joint Action Committee, funds earned through self financing courses, and from other sources, had been misutilised. Claiming to have been implicated in the case, Mr Ahluwalia had submitted that the committee was formed by persons having vested interests in order to oust him from the VC’s post. Treatment
charges
Allowing a petition filed by a retired Sub Divisional Education Officer, Mr Justice Mehtab Singh Gill of the High Court on Tuesday directed the state of Haryana and other respondents to pay within a month treatment charges as per the rates of All-India Institute of Medical Sciences and the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research at Chandigarh. Pronouncing the orders on a petition by Mr Om Shankar Mishra, Mr Justice Gill ruled: “Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of a sanction letter dated November 21 last year issued by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary in Haryana Government’s Health Department whereby a similarly situated person was given medical reimbursement on the basis of rates prevailing at AIIMS and PGI. In view of the above facts and circumstances the petition is allowed”.
|
