The single judge modified the impugned order to allow the appellant to claim a refund of deposited amount only upon producing proof of the deposit, and allowed the application accordingly.
Modified order stating refund is conditional on proof of deposit; application allowed.
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
RA-RS No.93-C of 2015 (O&M) in RSA No.3460 of 2012 Date of Decision.14.02.2017
Gurmit Kaur .......Appellant Vs State of Punjab and others ........Respondents
Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the applicant-respondents.
Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate for the non-applicant/appellant.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
Mr. Sharma submits that contention of review petitioner-State with regard to depositing of `56,000/- can only be ascertained in case the non-applicant/appellant submits proof of the same.
In view of the aforementioned fact, the order under challenge is hereby modified. It is made clear that the non-applicant/appellant shall be entitled to refund of the amount in case she produces the receipt of deposit of the amount of `56,000/-.
The application stands allowed in the aforementioned terms.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
February 14, 2017 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.02.16 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order regarding deposit refund needs modification upon production of proof.
Gurmit Kaur
State of Punjab
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
