Himachal Pradesh Court May 1999 Judgments

Rajiv Moudgil and ors. Vs. H.P. Housing Board and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2000HP77

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. This writ petition has been filed jointly by eight petitioners seeking to command the respondents by a writ in the nature of rertiorari/ mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit, declaring the action of the respondents in enhancing exorbitantly the price of the houses in the Housing Complex, Baddi District Solan, as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, against the rules or principles of natural justice, violation of Articles 14, 298 and 299 of the Constitution of India and for directing the respondents to charge from the allottees of the house only the original price i.e. Rs. 1,78,000/- as had been advertised for these houses in the advertisement marked as Annexure P-1 and that payments already made by the petitioners may be ordered to be adjusted accordingly. The petitioners then prayed that reasonable house rent at market rate which would have accrued within a reasonable time i.e. within 2-3 years to them be also allowed s...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pyare Lal and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: I(2000)ACC466,2001ACJ680

D. Raju, C.J.1. The above appeals arise out of one and the same accident, which occurred at 8.00 p.m. on 31.1.87 involving truck No. HPS 7357 in which the respective victims were said to have been travelling and, therefore, are taken up for consideration together. The respondents are also one and the same and that is how the learned counsel appearing on either side came to make common submissions. It will be useful to give certain facts, which are common for both the cases.2. So for as F.A.O. No. 46 of 1991 is concerned, the same has been filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award made by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimla on 3.12.1990 in Case No. 57-S/2 of 1987 on a claim petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by son and a daughter both majors and a minor son of late Mohan Lal, whereunder the Tribunal below awarded a total sum of Rs. 91,400 in favour of the claimants and against the insurance company, with a further direction that all t...

H.P. Horticultural Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd. V ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2000HP11

R.L. Khurana, J. 1. The plaintiff is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It has a Fruit Processing Plant at Parwanoo in District Solan. In such plant, 18 numbers of Tanks have been installed in the cold storage chamber. Such tanks have the storage capacity of 4.20 lacs litres of apple juice concentrate. Two other tanks with the storage capacity of 50,000 litres of apple juice concentrate have been installed in the pre-cooling chamber outside the cold storage chamber.2. The complete plant and machinery, tools accessories etc. along with the stock of apple Juice concentrate, Aroma and chemicals whilst lying in the cold storage was insured by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 6,24,65,000/- during the period 17-9-1990 to 16-9-1991 vide insurance policy Ex. PW 1/1, covering the following risks :--1. Fire. 2. Lightening. 3. Explosion/implosion but excluding loss of or damage to boilers (other than domestic boilers) economisers, or other vessels, machinery or apparatus ...

Khanna Watches Limited Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (2000)ILLJ916HP

D. Raju, C. J. 1. The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- management seeking to quash the award of the 2nd respondent- Labour Court dated April 1, 1998 published on June 20, 1998 in the Himachal Pradesh Official Gazette, which was rendered on an application No. 88/94 filed under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. Among other things, the sheet anchor of the challenge projected by the management against the award in question is that the 3rd respondent worker having not pressed even the grievance of changing the condition of service, as envisaged under Section 33 of the Act, the application under Section 33-A itself became incompetent and, therefore, the question of deciding Issue No. 2 formulated by the Labour Court did not arise. It is also the contention of the petitioner-management that the very reference said to have been made in Reference No. 27/94 also was allowed to be disposed of and dismissed as not pressed on March 13, 1995.3. The award under chall...

State of H.P. Vs. Ishwar Dass and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1999CriLJ3931

M.R. Verma, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 16-1-1995, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, whereby in Criminal Appeal No. 31-N/10 of 1994/1993 while maintining the conviction of the accused respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') for the commission of offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code the sentence awarded to the accused to undergo the rigourous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Mahan, has been substituted by release of the accused after due admonition.2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused Ishwar Dass owned a cow which on turning dry was sold by him to PW 1 Harnam Dass for consideration in the sum of Rs. 1000/-on 9-ll-1990. PW Harnam Das took proper care of the cow and got it artificially inseminated with the result that the cow delivered a calf in the year 1991. After about a month of the delivery of the c...

Himachal Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer and ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1151HP

D. Raju, C. J.1. The above writ petition has been filed seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent- Labour Court dated September 10, 1992 in case-App-17/89, whereunder the first respondent-Labour Court held the second respondent to be entitled to two hours' over time wages per day for the relevant period, as claimed by the second respondent, besides 11 months' pay in lieu of 171 Sundays on which he was said to have performed the duties but was not granted the compensatory leave in lieu of Sundays, by the respondents with a further direction to pay the amount within a stipulated time imposing a default clause for payment of interest also, if not paid within the time stipulated.2. The second respondent, who was working as a Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation, was posted as Booking Clerk at Haridwar where he used to do the work of Booking tickets for the buses of the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cor...

Smt. Savita Thakur and ors. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

D. Raju, C.J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single judge of this court dated October 14, 1997, in O. M. P. S. Nos. 461 and 462 of 1996 in Execution Petition No. 10 of 1992 whereunder the learned single judge came to dismiss the application filed under Order 21, rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, objecting to the execution of the decree obtained against Gulab Singh, judgment debtor No. 2 in the suit, who is the husband of appellant No. 1 and the father of appellants Nos. 2 and 3.2. The first respondent-bank obtained a decree for Rs. 2,14,016.70 with costs and future interest at the rate of 12.5 per cent, per annum from the date of decree, which was passed on March 10, 1987, in Civil Suit No. 32 of 1986. The said decree appears to have been modified on further appeal in R. F. A. No. 90 of 1987, which came to be decided on June 30, 1997, wherein interest was said to have been allowed from the date of suit in addition to allowing a further su...

Naresh Sharma and ors. Vs. Ramesh Chand and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2000HP6

ORDERKamlesh Sharma, J. 1. The above revision petition is directed against the order dated 20-1-1998 passed by Rent Controller. Hamirpur in Execution Petition No. 28 of 1995 and the order dated 23-1-1998 passed by the District Judge. Hamirpur exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). By the impugned order dated 20-1-1998 the Rent Controller has dismissed the objections filed by the petitioners, against which they had filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, which has been dismissed in limine as not maintainable by the impugned order dated 23-1-1998.2. The present case has chequered history. Respondents 1 to 4 are the sons and respondent 5 is the daughter of one Uttam Chand, who was landlord of the premises in dispute. Respondents 6 to 8 are the sons and the petitioners are the daughters of one Om Parkash. The petitioners claim that Om Parkash was the tenant of the premises in dispute, which are shop...

Satinder Singh Vs. Sukhdev

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1999HP72

ORDERD. Raju, C.J. 1. The above revision has been filed by the defendant against the order dated 7-4-1997 passed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Solan, in case No. 497/1 of 1990, whereunder the Court below has chosen to reject an application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for recalling the plaintiff, who was examined as P.W. 4, for being further cross-examined. 2. The petitioner in his application before the Court below has stated that in the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the land, the defendant-petitioner filed a written statement refuting the allegations levelled in the plaint and asserted that the defendant is the owner in possession and revenue entries made in this regard are correct. In the course of the trial of the suit, the plaintiff was said to have been examined as P.W. 4 and he seems to...

Kishan Chand Vs. Bihari Lal and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1999HP68

R.L. Khurana, J. 1. This regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-10-1992 of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, at the instance of the plaintiff was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:-- 'Whether on the facts the defendants were under legal obligations to restore the premises to its original form?' 2. There existed a shop in the ground floor of the building located in the land measuring 22.52 sq. metres comprising of khasra No. 1298 of Mohal Bhojpur, Sudernagar. The plaintiff was a tenant in respect of this shop under defendant No. 3 on payment of monthly rental of Rs. 25/-. The entire building including the shop was gutted in fire on 9-1-1986. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that though the shop under his tenancy was gutted in fire, his tenancy continues to subsist. He, therefore, had approached the defendants to reconstruct the shop and restore it to its original condition. Since the defendants failed to reconstruct the ...