Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHAGWAN KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhagwan Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors - RSA-2701-2001 [2006] RD-P&H 723 (14 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.2701 of 2001

Date of Decision : January 31, 2006.

Bhagwan Kaur .... Appellant

Vs.

State of Punjab & others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : None for the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

This case was adjourned sine die vide order dated December 19, 2003. A perusal of the record shows that even on earlier dates, no one was present on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was ordered to be listed for motion hearing on October 24, 2005. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant on the said date as well. Case was adjourned for motion hearing for today. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the appellant today also.

I have gone through the record of the case.

The plaintiff is the appellant before this court, who has concurrently lost before the two courts below. She filed a suit for recovery of Rs.11653.94 paise. The claim was made by her on the ground that since the payments due to her had been made belatedly, therefore, she was entitled to interest.

Both the courts below have concurrently found it as a fact that although the payment was made to the plaintiff after a delay of 8 months and 8 days but delay of the defendants was not intentional. The plaintiff had retired on May 31, 1992. Thereafter her papers were moved for retiral benefits. The plaintiff did not submit the requisite papers in time and because of the aforesaid fact, the payment was delayed by the defendants.

Consequently, the claim of the plaintiff was rejected by the trial court . Her appeal also failed before the first appellate court.

R.S.A.No.2701 of 2001 : 2 :

From the perusal of the record, I have not been able to find out any error in the findings recorded by the two courts below.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

January 31, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika 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.