Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Tulsi Dass vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. ... on 29 August, 2022

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH


Sr. No.202                                     CWP No.2724 of 2020
                                               Date of Decision: 29.08.2022

Tulsi Dass                                                      .....Petitioner

                                         Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
Ltd. and others                                                ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI


Present:     Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate
             for the respondents.
                    ***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.(ORAL)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner is covered by the decision rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.5566 of 1999, titled as Prithvi Ram versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 03.09.2001, which opinion has again been reiterated by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.15679 of 2015 titled as Bhagwan Dutt versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 02.02.2017 and hence, the present petition be also disposed of in the same terms as in Prithvi Ram's case (supra).

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that the question of law as raised in the present petition is covered by the decision in Prithvi Ram's case (supra), as he has not been able to distinguish the same in any manner.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2022 07:17:52 ::: CWP No.2724 of 2020 -2- Keeping in view the above, the present petition is also disposed of in the same terms as in Prithvi Ram's case (supra). The recovery order dated 30.05.2016 (Annexure P-8) passed against the petitioner is accordingly set aside. Any recovery done from the petitioner be refunded to him within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order.




                                         (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
                                                JUDGE

29.08.2022
Maninder



             Whether Speaking/reasoned                :    Yes/No
             Whether reportable                       :    Yes/No




                                2 of 2
             ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2022 07:17:52 :::