Himachal Pradesh Court October 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mohan MeakIn Breweries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR633(HP)
M. Srinivasan, C.J. 1. The question referred to this court is : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax payable by the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the corresponding surtax assessment year cannot be allowed as a deduction in computing its total income ?' 2. The Supreme Court has now held in Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT : [1996]219ITR581(SC) that the said payment cannot be allowed as deduction in computing the total income for the corresponding year. While doing so, the Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of the Kerala High Court in A V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1986]159ITR431(Ker) and reversed the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Makum Tea Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT . 3. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court this question is no longer available for discussion in this court. Hence, the reference is answered by holding that the Tribunal was right in hold...
Ranger Breweries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ321HP
P.K. Palli, J.1. These writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact and are directed against the same order, therefore, these petitions are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment. Facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 497 of 1995, Ranger Breweries v. State of H.P. and Ors..2. Challenge here in these writ petitions is made to an order dated April 21, 1995 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Labour Court, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. Union of workmen of the petitioner had raised certain demands and in sequence thereof, a reference was desired to be made to the Labour Court.3. Reference was now being made by respondent No. 1 resulting into the filing of Writ Petition No. 703/1991 which was filed by the Union seeking Mandamus against Respondent No. 1 to refer the dispute to the Labour Court and to declare the lock out as illegal and unjustifiable. The writ petition was finally disposed of with certain directions by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order/judgme...
Prabhu Dutt Sharma Vs. Himachal Gujarat Ambuja Cement Co. Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ146HP
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. The prayers in this writ petition are to direct the third respondent, namely, the State of Himachal Pradesh, to place on record memorandum of understanding entered between the first respondent and the third respondent, to declare the retrenchment of the petitioner with effect from May 1, 1996 as void ab initio, to declare the petitioner as a regular employee of the first respondent and hold entitled to all the benefits of regular employee with effect from August 5, 1995, to penalise the first and second respondents for violation of the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulations of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 and to direct the fourth and fifth respondents to place on record the details of registration of the first respondent establishment with them and also details of the Contractors working with the first respondent, who obtained licence as provided by law and also the nature ...
Ramji Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2765
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. This appeal is filed by Ramji against the judgment passed by Shri Janeshwar Goel, Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1989 dated 30-3-1991. By means of impugned judgment, the appellant has been held to be guilty of committing offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in the event of non-payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.2. The apellant along with his father, mother and sister was prosecuted under Sections 304, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution against all the four aforesaid persons arrayed as accused, before the trial court was that Bakshi Ram, father of the deceased Mehar Chand and Relu Ram are real brothers and their houses are situated nearby but they were, living separately for the last 20 years along with their respe...
Thakur Singh Rahi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2367
ORDER TO BE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO REMOVE THE ACCUSED FROM OFFICE.(See Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Act No. II of 1947) No._________ Dated :GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATIONVOCATIONAL & INDUSTRIAL TRAINING (H.P.) SUNDER NAGAR (DISTT. MANDI) 174401....
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kartar Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2321
ORDERArun Kumar Goel, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, I have also gone through the records of this case.2. In order to properly appreciate the case, it is necessary to state a few facts in the peculiar background and circumstances of the case. A writlcn complaint was made by one Smt. Ranjana Kumari, wife of Kartar Singh, who is son of respondents Jai Singh and Brahmi Devi. The case of the complainant in the plaint dated 23-12-1994 addressed by her to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur was that she was married to KartarSingh 1 years ago and a child is there from this wedlock. According to her, the respondents along with one Babli, son of Mehar Singh, started harassing her by saying that her parents have given very less dowry. At such point of time, a demand of Rs, 10,000/- was made, otherwise she would be done to death. This demand was fulfilled by her by bringing Rs. 10,000/- from her parents and the same was handed over to Kartar Singh, respon...
State of H.P. Vs. Parkash Chand and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1979
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. Parkash Chand respondent, Smt. Saina Devi his mother and Tek Chand his brother have been acquitted by Shri Janeshwar Goel, Addl. Sessions Judge (1) Kangra Division at Dharamsala in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1986 and Sessions trial No. 9 of 1986. Parkash Chand was charged under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of his wife Smt. Reeta Devi as also for having caused disappearance of the evidence with intention to screen himself from legal punishment. Other two respondents, namely, Tek Chand and Saina Devi were charged under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. for having allegedly committed offence of disappearance of the evidence of the dead body of the wife of Parkash Chand respondent with an intention to screen the said Parkash Chand from legal punishment. It is this acquittal of the respondents which has been impugned by the State in the present appeal.2. Brief facts of the case are that late Rita Devi ...
Swatantra Singh Vs. Neel Kamal Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: I(1998)DMC720
A.K. Goel, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by Smt. Kiran Aggarwal, District Judge (Forests), Shimla in HMA Case No. 9-S/3 of 1990 dated 28.6.1993 whereby the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce filed under Section 13(l)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'wife') on the ground other having treated the husband with cruelty was dismissed. The matter came up before this Court on a number of occasions and attempts were made from time to time for re-conciliation as a duty is enjoined upon the Court under Section 23 of the Act, but unfortunately for some reason or the other the appellant was not in a position to attend that Court although it was assured by his learned Counsel, who appeared for him from time to time that despite his intention to attend that Court for reasons beyond his control,...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›