Himachal Pradesh Court September 2000 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.
United India Insurance Co. and anr. Vs. Kuldeep Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC177,ILR2001NULL177
Kuldip Chand Sood, J.1. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the Insurance Company through its Chairman and Divisional Manager, Shimla for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. The petitioner, it appears, suffered a decree of Rs. 2,50,000/- in a Civil Suit No. 9 of 1995 filed by the respondent for damages vide judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Bilaspur dated September 6,1999. Dissatisfied, the applicants-defendants filed regular second appeal in this Court on December 18,1999.3. The Registry, it appears, raised number of objections including that appeal is not stamped at all. The appeal was returned for removal of the objections raised by the Registry within a week. The appeal was refiled on March 7,2000 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of three days in filing the appeal which, according to the applicants, occurred due to the procedural delay in the office of the applicants. ...
Jai Chand and anr. Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2000
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2301
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Accused jai Chand and Budhi Singh were prosecuted in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1996 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Mandi for offences punishable under Sections 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act for the murder of Smt. Seema Devi wife of accused Jai Chand. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced accused Jai Chand for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 302, IPC and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Accused Budhi Singh has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to underg...
Smt. Nirmala Vs. Hari Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: AIR2001HP1
Kuldip Chand Sood, J.1. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge (I) Shimla dated September 18, 1993.2. In order to appreciate the controversy, the facts. In brief, may be notice :One Sh. Jawala Dass was owner in possession of the landed property, including suit property, comprised in khasra numbers 82 and 83 along with two houses situate thereon, situate in mauza Seehpur of Tehsil and District Shimla. Jawala Dass died onFebruary 28, 1972. He was succeeded by his widow Hem Dagsi, son Devi Saran and daughter Ram Kali. Devi Saran also died Immediately thereafter and was succeeded by his widow Reshmu Devi. Hem Dassi (widow of Jawala Dass) gifted her l/3rd share in the properties left by Jawala Dass, including the suit property, to defendant Nirmala. Thus. Nirmala, Ram Kali and Reshmu became owners in 'possession of the property of Jawala Dass including the suit property to the exten...
Himachal Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Ganeshwar Sharma and ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ931
Kuldip Chand Sood, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 31.12.92, in Claim Petition No. 19 of 1991.2. In order to appreciate controversy, facts in brief may be noticed:Ganeshwar Sharma, claimant, resident of village and P.O. Deol in Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, was employed as Junior Engineer with the H.P. State Electricity Board at the relevant time. He was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 4,000. 3. On 29.4.90, he was going to Baijnath from Palampur on a scooter as a pillion rider. The scooter was driven by Nirmal Sharma, PW 4. When scooter reached near Banuri Mor (curve), a bus No. HPK 9644 driven by respondent Som Nath came from the opposite direction and struck with the scooter. Both the claimant and Nirmal Sharma fell down. Claimant sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious. He was taken to Civil Hospita...
Saini and Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: [2001]113TAXMAN55(NULL)
Thakker, C.J. This petition is placed before the Full Bench pursuant to an order dated 8-12-1999, passed by a Division Bench in CMP No. 439 of 1999. The said order reads as under:'Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.The sum and substance of the submission made for the petitioners by the learned counsel appearing is that the Division Bench which rendered the decision in Rudra & Co. v. Union of India , has not properly construed the provisions contained in the Explanation to section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended and had the Explanation been properly construed, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judges of the Division Bench could not have followed. As long as the judgment of the Division Bench stands, it is not given to another Division Bench to go behind the same to lay down any different proposition of law.In view of the above, the claim for granting interim order as prayed for could not be countenanced since a...
Saini and Co. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR762(HP)
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This petition is placed before the Full Bench pursuant to an order dated December 8, 1999, passed by a Division Bench in C. M. P. No. 439 of 1999. The said order reads as under :'Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.The sum and substance of the submission made for the petitioners by learned counsel appearing is that the Division Bench which rendered the decision reported in Rudra and Co. v. Union of India , has not properly construed the provisions contained in the Explanation to Section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended and had the Explanation been properly construed, the conclusion arrived at by the learned judges of the Division Bench could not have followed. As long as the judgment of the Division Bench stands, it is not given to another Division Bench to go behind the same to lay down any different proposition of law.In view of the above, the claim for granting interim order as prayed for could ...
Munish Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ919
R.L. Khurana, J. 1. The plaintiff, Munish Kumar, is a partner of the firm Vijay Bharat Cigarette Stores, Pathankot. In connection with the business, the plaintiff was actively travelling in various parts of the States of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. On 18.9.1988 at about 5 p.m. the plaintiff accompanied by one Ravinder Kumar, was going from village Badoh to Garoh falling in Tehsil Nurpur of District Kangra on motor cycle No. PAH 3340. Plaintiff was driving the motor cycle while the above named Ravinder Kumar was the pillion rider. A small bridge of four spans near Bassa Wazira falls on the way from Garoh to Badoh. This bridge is known as Garali Khad Bridge. The bridge was incomplete at the relevant time. The approach to the bridge is at an incline and there is a sharp curve before the bridge. As such the complete length of the bridge was not visible. No indication or sign was displayed to the effect that the bridge was incomplete, nor there were any blockades or danger signs placed. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›