Himachal Pradesh Court March 1994 Judgments

Chuni Lal and Two ors. Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1995CriLJ1393

D.P. Sood, J. 1. Appellants, Chuni Lal, Partap Singh alias Partapu and Kabli Ram were jointly tried and convicted for the commission of the offence under Sections 302, 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on each count, i.e. under Sections 302 and 394 IPC respectively. Each one of the appellant, in case of default of payment of fine, was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count vide the impugned judgment dated' January 16, 1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba (H.P.). However, the sentences passed on each count were to run concurrently. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court, all the accused have filed the instant appeal seeking reversal thereof. 2. Precisely, the prosecution case is that appellant hail from village Paryungal, Police Station, Kihar, District Chamba. They have been apprehended for the murder of Shri Khurshid Ahmad which incident is allege...

Kailash District Co-op. Marketing and Supply Federation Ltd. and ors. ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1995HP48

A.L. Vaidya, J. 1. The plaintiff-respondent Sh. Narinder Singh originally filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 85,000/-against the present appellants which suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 30th June, 1969. The plaintiff assailed the said judgment and decree in an appeal before the Division Bench and the appeal was accepted vide judgment dated 7th July, 1971 and the suit was remanded back for retrial after addition of some issues.2. After remand the plaintiff preferred an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint which was allowed vide order dated 8th December, 1971 and on the basis of the amended pleadings, submitted by the parties; some additional issues were framed.3. The learned single Judge thereafter decreed the suit and the said decree has been assailed in the present appeal on various grounds.4. The case off the plaintiff, as put up in the amended plaint, had been that he was running a business after the name and style 'Narin...

Joginder Singh and ors. Etc. Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1995CriLJ124

A.L. Vaidya, J. 1. The present appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1992 and the respondent Bajinder Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 1992 were tried together in the same trial for the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC. Joginder Singh appellant is the father while appellants Jagtar Singh, Balwinder Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1992 and Bajinder Singh respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 1992 are the sons of Joginder Singh. All of them were charged for committing the murder of deceased Dilavar Singh, the real brother of Joginder Singh. As both these appeals arise out of the same trial pertaining to the same occurrence, accordingly, they are being disposed of by the same judgment.2. The prosecution case, as put up against the accused persons has been that father of Joginder Singh and that of Dilavar Singh deceased had four plots of land which he left for his four sons Joginder Singh, the deceased Dilavar Singh and two other brothers. Joginder Singh and Mohinder Singh two b...

Rajinder Chand Abrol Vs. State of Him. PrA. and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1995CriLJ800

ORDERA.L. Vaidya, J.1. Shri Mahesh Arora, Manager (Project)-cum-Secretary, M/s. Auro Spinning Mills, Baddi-Nalagarh, a unit of Vardhman Spinning and General Mills Ltd., Ludhiana, the present respondent No. 2, submitted a complaint under Section 420 IPC against the present petitioner before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, on 28th January, 1993. The learned Magistrate on that very day ordered the complaint to be forwarded to the S.H.O. Police Station, Barotiwala, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for further action as per law. F.I.R. No. 23/93 dated 24th February, 1993 under Section 420 IPC at Police Station, Barotiwala, as such, was registered against the present petitioner on the basis of the accusations made in the complaint.2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties the relevant accusations made against the present petitioner in the complaint which have been made the base of the F.I.R., referred to above, are essential to be t...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ruchira Papers Ltd.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V. Ratnam, C.J. 1. In this tax reference, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court, in respect of the assessment year 1986-87 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that cash subsidy received by the assessee is not to be deducted from the cost of machinery and plant and building under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for determining their actual cost for the purposes of depreciation allowance under Section 32 of the Act ?'2. In Srinivas Industries v. CIT : [1991]188ITR22(Mad) , I had occasion to consider an identical question and, on a consideration of the provisions of the scheme and the relevant provisions of the Act, as well as the view taken by the different courts on this question, it was held that the actual cost of assets cannot be reduced b...

Kufri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: [1995]211ITR98(HP)

V. Ratnam, C.J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash notices proposing to rectify certain mistakes stated to have crept in into the assessment in respect of the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 relating to the petitioners. The reason given for the proposed rectification, as could be gathered from annexure P-7, is that while calculating depreciation on the assets of the assessees, central subsidy amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs had not been reduced from the cost of assets and that it was proposed to reduce the same and in respect of such a proposal, the petitioners were called upon to set out their objections, if any. The petitioners have approached this court contending that there is no question of rectifying any mistake, as claimed in annexure P-7, as there is no question of reduction, while calculating depreciation, of central subsidy received by the petitioners. In support of the stand so taken, the petitioners have relied...

Khan Mohammad Vs. Talib Hussain

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1995CriLJ1401

ORDERD.P. Sood, J.1. Shri Khan Mohammad, petitioner, has approached this Court by way of this petition under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein-' after shortly referred to as 'the Code'), for quashing order dated 6-11-1993 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Mandi.2. The dispute is in between the father-in-law and the son-in-law. Latter is the complainant who has initiated criminal proceedings against the former, his father-in-law. The daughter of the petitioner was married to the complainant in the year 1990. However, pursuant to a writing on 31 -1-1992, allegedly, divorce had been effected in between the parties. After the divorce, the petitioner along with his parents was handed over articles and the money belonging to his former wife (daughter of the petitioner) as per amicable settlement arrived at. It is alleged that on October 31, 1993 at about 2.00 p.m., the complainant accompanied by S/Sh. Sunder Singh and Ha...

State of H.P. Vs. Sh. Ramji

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1995HP127

Devinder Gupta, J. 1. These three appeals were admitted for hearing on the following question of law:Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of the bar created by Section 10 of the Himchal Pradesh Common Lands Vesting andUtilisation Act, 1974? 2. Not only the question of law but also the facts in the three appeals are almost same and similar on which similar findings have been recorded by the two Courts below. Respondents in the appeals are the plaintiffs.3. Plaintiffs filed three separate suits claiming decree for declaration that they had become owner of the suit property and the orders passed by Sub-Divisional Collector ordering their eviction were illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction. By way of consequential relief a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was claimed restraining the State from dispossessing them from the suit property. This declaration with consequential relief of injunction was prayed by alleging that the concerned Gram Panchayats, in w...

Om Parkash Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1995HP5

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. 1. Bythis writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders of the first respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh) allotting quota of Ayurvedic Medicines to the other firms ignoring the claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, these orders, denying similar treatment to him, are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner is a partner of Himachal Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical works. His unit is dealing in the manufacture of Ayurvedic medicines since 1952 and is registered as a Small Scale Industry by the Industries Department of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1971 vide registration No. SS-I-06-07/ 010694/ PMT/ SSI. It is alleged in the petition that his unit is manufacturing more than 300 items and the work of manufacturing is being carried out with the help of modern machines. The Director of Health Services is alleged to have issued manufacturing licence ...

Raj Mohammad and anr. and Gulzar Ali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1995CriLJ810

Bhawani Singh, J. 1. We propose to decide both these criminal appeals (Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 1992 and Cr! Appeal No. 22 of 1992) by this judgment since they arise out of the same judgment of conviction by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, in Sessions trial No. 111/2 of 90/ 22-N/7 of 90, dated 21-3-1992, holding the accused guilty of offences under Sections 302/506/ 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- in each case and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, They have also been sentenced for two years under Section 120-B and six months under Sections 506/34 in each case, ordering the sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently.2. We may now deal with the facts of the case briefly. The case against the accused is that they hatched a criminal conspiracy in order to eliminate deceased Tara Chand, S/o Balak Ram (P.W. 7), R/o village Nanu Majra, Teh...