SWARAN KAUR vs JAGDISH RAM AND ORS — COCP/1396/2017
Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 15th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010008882017
Filing Number
COCP/1396/2017
Filing Date
23-May-2017
Registration No
COCP/1396/2017
Registration Date
23-May-2017
Judge
Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Coram
Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Bench Type
Single
Category
1.11 - LPA GRANT/REFUSAL OF PERMIT ROUTE ( 335 )
Sub-Category
( 921 )
Judicial Branch
CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I
Decision Date
15-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SWARAN KAUR
Adv. Atam Prakash Setia
Respondent(s)
-
1.JAGDISH RAM AND ORS
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-May-2026
Mr. Justice Deepak GuptaView PDF
Summary of COCP/1396/2017 (Swaran Kaur v. Jagdish Ram and Others) The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed pre-emption suits filed by Swaran Kaur against land sales, finding the foundational decree creating her co-shareholder status was collusive and engineered solely to defeat prior contractual rights of the vendees. The court also rejected contempt petitions alleging violation of court orders, concluding that once the plaintiff's substantive pre-emption rights failed, no basis existed for contempt proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Jul-2018
Mr Justice Jaswant Singh
-
11-Jul-2018
—
Mr. Justice S.P. Bangarh
-
25-May-2018
—
Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon
-
02-Feb-2018
—
Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
-
24-Oct-2017
—
Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
-
21-Aug-2017
—
Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
-
25-May-2017
Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary
-
25-May-2017
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-May-2017
Case filed
Registration No. COCP/1396/2017
Summary of COCP/1396/2017 (Swaran Kaur v. Jagdish Ram and Others) The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed pre-emption suits filed by Swaran Kaur against land sales, finding the foundational decree creating her co-shareholder status was collusive and engineered solely to defeat prior contractual rights of the vendees. The court also rejected contempt petitions alleging violation of court orders, concluding that once the plaintiff's substantive pre-emption rights failed, no basis existed for contempt proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts