Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT.MANJU NOORPURI & ORS versus IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt.Manju Noorpuri & Ors v. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana - CWP-6598-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 4087 (13 July 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.6598 of 2004

DATE OF DECISION: July 14, 2006

Smt.Manju Noorpuri and others

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Improvement Trust, Ludhiana

.....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

PRESENT: Shri Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri R.G.Sahota, Advocate for the respondent.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

Shri Puneet Jindal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners informs the Court that CWP No.7221 of 2005 (Dr.Dharam Pal Ghambir v. State of Punjab and others) was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on August 8, 2005 by passing the following order:

"Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the instant writ petition be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 i.e. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, requiring it to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Harsh Dhingra vs. State of Haryana, JT 2001(8) SC 296 and pass a fresh detailed order, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

In the meantime, dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed.

In case, the order passed by the respondents is adverse to the interests of the petitioner, no action shall be taken against him for a period of two weeks from the date when the order is served upon the petitioner." Shri Jindal further informs the Court that the controversy in the present case is identical to Dr.Dharam Pal Ghambir's case (supra).

Consequently, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent Trust to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Harsh Dhingra v. State of Haryana JT 2001(8) SC 296 and pass a fresh detailed and speaking order, in accordance with law.

Till the final decision is taken by the Trust, dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed.

A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 14,2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD 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.