Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARDEEP SINGH versus PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES & EXPORT CORPORA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hardeep Singh v. Punjab Small Industries & Export Corpora - CWP-19277-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 5888 (24 August 2006)

C.W.P NO. 19277 OF 2004 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 19277 OF 2004

Date of decision : July 14, 2006

* * * * *

Hardeep Singh ............Petitioner

Vs.

Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd., & anr. ...........Respondents

* * * * *

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

Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated August 29, 2003 and for issuance of directions to the respondents to waive the interest/penal interest/extension fee. A further prayer has been C.W.P NO. 19277 OF 2004 [2]

made to issue directions to reschedule the payment of the balance price of the plot in question.

The petitioner was allotted a plot in question vide allotment letter dated December 7. 1997. Thereafter, it was realised by the petitioner that the allotted plot had certain safeda trees which could not be removed from that plot and as such was not fit for construction. The petitioner requested the respondent-Corporation that either he may be permitted to remove the trees himself or the aforesaid trees be got removed. On the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation got the aforesaid safeda trees removed.

It is also the stand of the respondent-Corporation in the written statement filed by them that the allotment date of the petitioner with regard to the said plot has been changed from December 3, 1997 to May 2, 2001.

Sh. Manish Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation states that the payments already made by the petitioner has been adjusted towards the principal amount and as per the new date of allotment i.e May 2, 2001, the petitioner is required to pay interest/penal interest only w.e.f the changed date of allotment i.e May 2, 2001.

This statement made by Sh. Bansal fully satisfies Sh. Rajinder C.W.P NO. 19277 OF 2004 [3]

Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the present petition is rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.

However, it is specifically observed that the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest/penal interest and the installments as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter w.e.f May 2, 2001.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

July 14, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu 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.