Himachal Pradesh Court October 2001 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.
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Varinder Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ735
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th July, 1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1995, whereby appeal of the respondent was allowed, and as a consequence of it conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb in Case No. 61-1 of 1994, dated 23rd August, 1995 has been set aside.2. As a question of fact, it may be noted that the respondent was challenged and tried for having committed offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After conclusion of the trial he was found guilty of the offences except for the one under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He was sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 279, I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. To undergo simple imprisonment for six months and ...
Rajesh Kumar and anr. Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1610
M.R. Verma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20-12-1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 498-A/34, IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months each.2. The appellants along with Jagdish Ram and Ram Dulari (co-accused before the trial Court and hereafter referred to as such) were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Una on, a charge under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 306 read with Section 34, IPC. Case of the prosecution against them is that Neelam Kumari, daughter of Ram Kishan (PW-1) and Bimla Devi (PW-3) was married to appellant Rajesh Kumar on 26-1-1991 when she was aged 22 years. After about two months of the marriage, when Neelam came back to her parents house, she informed them that her husband Rajesh Kumar, her mother in ...
Som Dutt Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1059
ORDERM.R. Verma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 7-1-1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan whereby the conviction of the petitioner under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- has been maintained.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, briefly stated, are that Partap Singh (P.W. 1) received a telephonic message on 2-3-1997 from Pariksha Devi (P.W. 3) intimating that they had to go to Shimla to have some urgent discussion with the Minister. P.W. 1 accompanied by Chet Ram (P.W. 2) then left for Chogtali. While on the way, the petitioner, Dev Dutt, Mohan Lal, Narain Dutt, Tara Dutt and Padam Dutt (all accused before the trial Court and hereafter referred to as the co-accused) questioned them as to why they were helping Hira Singh. P.W. 1 denied helping said Hira Singh. However, the aforesaid persons including the petitioner attacked P.W. 1. The petitioner pic...
Navneet Kumar Vs. Meena Kumari
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: AIR2002HP16
Arun Kumar Goel, J. 1. Appellantis aggrieved by the decree dated 2-5-2000, passed by learned Additional District Judge (1). Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. By means of impugned decree marriage between the parties has been dissolved. Respondent-wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. hereafter referred to as the 'Act'. 2. Admitted case of the parties is that they were married as per Hindu rites and customs on 18-10-1988 at Village Nehrian. Tehsil Amb District Una. They have one male issue from this wedlock who was born on 17-4-1990. According to the wife this child was taken away right from the date of his birth by the husband and his parents and since then he is residing with them only. Wife further alleged that the marriage was solemnised in hurry and it was not possible either for her or for her parents to know the antecedents of her husband. It was after marriage they came to know that he is a d...
Ansal Properties and Industries Vs. Executive Engineer, Hpseb and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC222,2002ACJ222,(2002)ILLJ1071HP
C.K. Thakker, CJ. 1. All these appeals arise out of cases No. 24 of 1993, 26 of 1993, 27 of 1993 and 28 of 1993 decided on May 27, 1998 by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, HPSEB, Unit-11, Mandi, H.P.2. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present appeals, few facts, which are necessary may now be stated. A fatal accident was reported by the Executive Engineer, Baner Construction Sub Division No. II, HPSEB, Jia Tehsil, Palampur. It was reported that at the said accident, which took place on August 18, 1993 at about 3.10 p.m., six persons, namely, S/Shri Kunjumon, Hari Bahadur, Ram Kumar, Vir Bahadur, Kamal and Roop Lama lost their lives on the spot. They were engaged by Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (appellant herein). A notice under Section 23 of; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on the employee asking it to submit documents, as required and the case was fixed at vari...
Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bimla Kanwar and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC346,II(2002)ACC754,2002ACJ346
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'H.R.T.C is aggrieved with the award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shirnla, in MAC No. 99-S/2 of 1995, dated 18.10.96. This claim petition was filed at the instance of the respondents, who are the widow and two minor daughters of late Inder Singh Kanwar.2. In proceedings initiated under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', learned Tribunal below awarded a total compensation of Rs. 7,97,700 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, besides interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, i.e., 14.11.1995 till the date it was paid or deposited by the H.R.T.C. This total amount is inclusive of the amount, if any, already paid to the respondents under no fault liability. Minor daughters have been allowed a sum of the Rs. 2,50,000 each with interest, as aforesaid and the remaining Rs. 2,97,700 has been...
Mohinder Dutt Sharma Vs. Bhagat Ram and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ529
ORDERM.R. Verma, J.1. These two applications one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (Cr. M.P. (M) No. 417 of 2001) for condonation of delay in filing the other application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1 (Cr.M.P. (M) No. 416 of 2001) have been filed by the applicant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') in Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2002.2. Briefly stated, facts leading to the filing of these applications are that respondent Bhagat Ram (since deceased) filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('hereafter referred to as the Act'). The learned trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 55,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and further directed that out of the fine imposed, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to complainant Bhagat Ram.3. B...
Tulsi Vs. Besar
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: AIR2002HP12
ORDERArun Kumar Goel, J. 1. This is defendant's secondappeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1994, passed by the then learned District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti Districts at Mandi in. Civil Appeal No. 123 of 1990. While dismissing the appeal of the defendant, the judgment and decree passed by Sub-Judge 1st Class, Sarkaghat in Civil Suit No. 110-1/88 dated 30-4-1990, has been upheld. By means of said decree, trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff, permanently restraining the defendant from Interfering in the possession of plaintiff on the suit land. While passing the decree, trial Court had further ordered that the possession of the plaintiff be deemed on behalf of other co-sharers as well as the decree shall enure for their benefit too. 2. Suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction claiming that he jointly owns the land comprised in Khewat No. 53 min/115 min. Khasra No. 88, measuring 0-8-43 hectare, situate in Village Kalkhar, ...
Astra Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas711(HP)
M.R. Verma, J.1. Since common questions of law and identical facts are involved in these two petitions, therefore, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.2. The work of reconstruction of 55 metres span bridges across Panvi Khud at Kilometre 334/170 on NH 22 of double lane standard with footpath was awarded in favour of the petitioner vide agreement No. 65 for 1993-94 forRs. 78,24,840. The work was to commence with effect from March 31, 1995, and was to be completed by March 25, 1996. Since the work was not completed by the petitioner, therefore, the contract was rescinded on December 17, 1997. The dispute, thus, having arisen between the parties, the same was referred for arbitration as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The arbitrator vide his award dated February 25, 1999, awarded a sum of Rs. 7,60,024 in favour of the respondent and a sum of Rs. 38,275 in favour of the petitioner and after adjustment awarded a sum of Rs. 7,21,749 in favour of the...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›