Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. versus RATTAN LAL

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Rattan Lal - RSA-3974-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 906 (17 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 3974 of 2004

Date of Decision: February 2, 2006

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.

and others

.....Appellants

Vs.

Rattan Lal

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate

for the respondent.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for short `the Nigam')- defendant and others having concurrently lost before both the Courts below have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

A suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff has been decreed by the learned trial Court. The appeal of the defendants was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court.

The plaintiff had claimed retiral benefits after having voluntarily retired w.e.f. December 31, 1998. The defence taken by the Nigam was that a R.S.A. No. 3974 of 2004 [2]

recovery was due against the plaintiff- respondent, therefore, the said amount could not be paid.

Both the Courts below have held that the order of recovery had been passed behind the back of the plaintiff and much after the filing of the suit by him without affording any opportunity of hearing to him at all. Consequently, it was held that the said order of recovery could not be held to be legal. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and the appeal of the Nigam was dismissed.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.

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

Dismissed.

February 2, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay 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.