Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI CHAND & ORS. versus RAMESHWAR DASS AHLUWALIA & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


HARI CHAND & Ors. v. RAMESHWAR DASS AHLUWALIA & Anr. - CR-421-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 37 (6 January 2006)

C.R. No. 421 of 2006. ( 1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.R. No. 421 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 23.1.2006

Hari Chand and others. Petitioners.

Versus

Rameshwar Dass Ahluwalia and another.

Respondents.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri Kuldeep V. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs are in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 17.12.2005, whereby ad- interim injunction granted by the trial Court restraining the defendants from functioning and operating any of the account of Ahluwalia Panchayat, during the pendency of the suit, was set aside.

According to the plaintiffs, the posts of Vice President, Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer, can be filled in only by election C.R. No. 421 of 2006. ( 2)

but instead of election, the President has nominated the other office bearers on 15.4.2005. The challenge is to the such nomination in a suit.

The learned first Appellate Court has found that in a general body meeting held on 20.3.2005, defendant no. 1 was declared President unanimously. Admittedly, there were no candidates for the other posts than that of President. The functioning of the Society cannot be put to naught by the restraint order sought by the petitioners. Though, the President has relied upon the previous precedent for the year 1995 & 2001 for nominating the other office bearers, the fact, whether the President has a right to nominate the other office bearers or the election has to be conducted, is to be decided on evidence. The said question of fact, will be gone into at the time of decision of the main suit.

Consequently, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.

23.1.2006. (Hemant Gupta)

ds Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.