The High Court heard a suo motu writ petition regarding payment claims. The Court allowed fresh claims within three months and discharged the rule.
Rule discharged; petitioner permitted to make a representation for legitimate claims within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
COCP No. 185 of 2012. [O&M] Date of Decision: 15th March, 2012.
Pala Ram
Petitioner through Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate
Versus
Arun Kumar and Ors. Respondents through Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]
Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed reply/affidavit along with details of the payments as well as receipt issued by the petitioner to the effect that he is fully satisfied with the payments. Be that as it may, if there is any other legitimate claim due, the petitioner may make a representation to the authorities concerned, who shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of three months.
Rule discharged.
Disposed of. Dasti .
March 15, 2012. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has legitimate claims for payments remaining unpaid.
Pala Ram
Arun Kumar and Ors.
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
