Himachal Pradesh Court March 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.
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Biplesh Kumar an ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC216,2001ACJ2017
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. These two appeals and cross-objections [F.A.O. (MVA) No. 99 of 1995 along with CO. No. 95 of 1996 and F.A.O. (MVA) No. 101 of 1995] are being disposed of by a common judgment as these arise out of the same accident. The appellants in both the appeals are Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter called 'the Board') and its Executive Engineer.2. In F.A.O. (MVA) No. 99 of 1995 the appellants are aggrieved by the award dated 23.12.94 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur whereby an amount of Rs. 1,61,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of deposit and costs of Rs. 330, was awarded to respondent Biplesh Kumar as compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident of truck No. HIS 9030 owned by the Board. The respondent-claimant has also filed cross-objections praying for the enhancement of the amount of compensation.3. Similarly, in F.A.O. (MVA) No. 101 ...
Lok Nath Attri Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1084HP
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Notice. Learned Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for hearing today.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for appropriate relief directing the respondents 1 and 2 to make a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Labour Commissioner,H.P., Shimla (Annexure-PD) dated September 21, 1998.3. The case of the petitioner was that he joined services with Mohan Meakin Ltd., Solan respondent No. 3 hereinabove on April 21, 1965. December 4, 1995 was last date of nomination fixed for the election of Zila Parishad. The election was scheduled to be held on December 18, 1995. The petitioner was compelled to submit predated resignation to the Secretary of respondent No. 3 so that he can contest the election. Accordingly, on December 6, 1995, he submit...
Whispering Rock Resorts Vs. Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and O ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC374,2001ACJ1764,[2002(92)FLR844],(2002)IILLJ249HP
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Admitted. Mr. Sanjay Karol, learned Advocate General, appears and waives notice of admission on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned counsel appears for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.This petition is filed by the petitioner against the orders (Annexure P/2) dated April 29, 1999 and May 20, 1999. The said orders read as under:'April 29, 1999: Called. Counsel for the applicant present. Counsel for the respondent Mr. O.P. Sharma present. The counsel for the respondent has filed reply. Now the case be listed for evidence for May 20, 1999. On the basis of the documents on record it is clear that the deceased Ramesh Kumar alias Bhatku was employed as a workman with the respondent and the accident occurred in the respondent's hotel. Therefore, the respondent is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000 as interim compensation before the next date. i.e. May 20, 1999. Sd/-Commi...
Hushan Kaushal and ors. Vs. Bal Raj and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: AIR2002HP94
ORDERR.L. Khurana, J. 1. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 23-10-2000 of the learned District Judge, Mandi, holding that the suit filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs) has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction and that he has no pecuniaiy jurisdiction to try the suit. It was further held that the petitioners were required to pay the ad valorem Court-fee on Rs. 25,86,240/- being the market value of their shares in the immovable properties, the partition of which is being sought. 2. The petitioners and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons and daughters of one Ram Rakha Kaushal of Sarkaghat in District Mandi. The said Ram Rakha has died on 12-8-1983 leaving behind the petitioners and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as his only legal heirs. Ram Rakha owned immovable properties, detailed in para 3 of the plaint, which have devolved upon the petitioners and respondents No. 1 to 3 in equal shares, that is, to the extent of 1/8th share e...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kewal Kumar
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3807,II(2001)DMC349
R.L. Khurana, J.1. Admit. Mr. Ashutosh Burathoki, learned Counsel waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent after admission. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties the matter is being finally disposed of today.2. Respondent Kewal Kumar was sought to be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 323, Indian Penal Code, on the basis of F.I.R. No. 21/1997 dated 8.1.1997 of Police Station, Kangra. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the material placed before him, came to the conclusion that no prima facie case for the offence under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code was made out against the respondent. He, therefore, discharged the accused of such offence. Insofar as the offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned Magistrate by observing that such an offence was exclusively triable by the Gram Panchayat, directed that the file be sent to the concerned Gram Panchayat for trial. While coming to the conclusion that no prima...
Teku Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: AIR2002HP89
Kuldip Chand Sood, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. Kinnaur at Rampur dated 1st June, 2000. 2. Having heard the parties, the appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : Whether the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata without framing any issue and giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their rival contentions? 3. In order to appreciate the controversy, undisputed facts, for the purpose of the disposal of this appeal, may be noticed thus : 4. Plaintiff-appellant. Teku Ram. Is resident of village Chuga Bag, P. O. Khaneri in Tehsil Rampur of District Shimla. He purchased some land in mauza Racholl and constructed a house on it. Municipal Coun-cil. Rampur levied certain taxes under the H. P. Municipal Act. 1994 on the houses falling within (Urban area) of Municipal Coun...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›