Himachal Pradesh Court March 2002 Judgments
Narpat Ram Vs. Hindustan Salt Ltd. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ768HP
Arun Kumar Goel, J. 1. Appellant was plaintiff in the trial Court and is being referred to as such. He filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order of dismissal dated August 6, 1981 passed by defendant No. 3 and order of compulsory retirement dated May 5, 1982 passed by defendant No. 2 is null void and inoperative. Further relief was also claimed by him of service benefits etc. As per averments made in the plaint, he was employed as a Class IV in January, 1956 by the Mining Engineer, Government of India, Salt Department, Mandi and was confirmed as such by the Deputy Salts Commissioner, Mandi. He was subsequently appointed as Lower Division Clerk by the said Deputy Salt Commissioner with Headquarter at Jaipur w.e.f. March 27, 1963.2. Further case set up was that Salt Department of Government of India was disbanded and converted into company known as Hindustan Salt Ltd. (a Government of India undertaking). Mandi salt mines were also handed over to this company along with its sta...
Tag this Judgment!Adman Dung Dung Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2882
R.L. Khurana, J.1. The present appeal through Jail has been directed by the appellant, Adman Dung Dung, hereinafter referred to as the accused, against the judgment dated 12-10-2001 of the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2001, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 304 (Part-I), Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.2. Briefly, the prosecution story may be thus stated. On the night intervening 21/ 22-10-2000 at about 12-50 a.m. PW. 1 Bhim Singh gave an information to the police on telephone about his servant Rattan Lakra having been assaulted and badly injured by the accused. Such information was duly recorded as report No. 44 (Ex. PW-7/A) in the daily diary of Police Station, Hamirpur and Head Constable Prabhu Ram along with Constable Som Raj were d...
Tag this Judgment!Marigold Papers Limited Vs. Renuka Packages Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: [2003]113CompCas636(HP),[2003]44SCL583(HP)
R.L. Khurana, J.1. The present petition under Sections 433 and 434 read with Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), has beenpreferred by the petitioner Messrs. Marigold Papers Limited, for the winding up of the respondent-company Messrs. Renuka Packages (Pvt.) Limited, having its registered office at Trilokpur Road, Kala Amb, in district Sirmaur.2. Briefly, the averments made in the petition are these. The respondent-company had approached the petitioner-company through Messrs. Ratna Vanijya Paper and Board Merchants, for the supply of 10 mt. kraft paper vide confirmed order dated April 1, 1997, at the agreed rate of Rs. 14.05 paise per kg. In pursuance of such order the petitioner-company supplied kraft paper worth Rs. 1,34,793 to the respondent-company vide invoice dated April 10, 1997. As per the terms of the invoice vide which the supply of kraft paper was made, payment for the supply was to be made by the respondent-company within seven days of the receipt o...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Singh Vs. Ranjot Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR425(HP)
R.L. Khurana, J.1. The plaintiff has directed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29-6-1998 of the learned District Judge, Nahan, reversing the judgment and decree dated 7-2-1998 of the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class (1). Paonta Sahib, and thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 50,000/- from the defendant.2. The plaintiff on 25-10-1993 had sold barberry roots to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 37,000/-. The defendant issued a cheque for the said amount in favour of the plaintiff. Such cheque on presentation to the Bank for encashment was returned as dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of defendant. The plaintiff, accordingly, on 16-8-1995 filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. 37,000/- being the principal amount and Rs. 13,000/- as interest on such principal amount at the rate of 18% per annum from 25-10-1993 till 31-7-1995).3. The defendant while resisting the suit, denied having purchased barberry roots ...
Tag this Judgment!State of H.P. Vs. Latif Mohammed
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4134
M.R. Verma, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4-9-1997, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, at Nahan, thereby acquitting the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'} of a charge under Section 325, I.P.C, the State of H.P. has preferred the present appeal.2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26-4-1994, at about 10 a.m., when Bakhtawar Singh (P.W. 1) was passing by the side of the house of the accused, wife of the accused asked him whether that was the path? P.W. 2 replied that he was passing through a path, but next time, he would not pass through that path. In the meanwhile, accused came on the spot and gave slaps and fist blows to P.W. 2, whereby he fell down and sustained injuries to his right hand thumb and right pit. He reported the matter to the police vide Rapat Rojnamcha Ex. P.W. 5/A, on the basis of which, FIR Ex. P.W. 6/A came into being at Police Station, Sadar, Nahan. P.W. 2 was got medically examined and was fo...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Sonia Bhalla and ors. Vs. Rajneesh Aggarwal and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3053
R.L. Khurana, J.1. The three petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of the proceedings initiated against them by the complainant-respondent No. 1 for their prosecution for the offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. Respondent No. 2, Messrs Bhalla Techtran Industries Limited, having its registered office at 116, Jorbagh, New Delhi-110003 is a limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioners are the Directors of such company, while respondent No. 3 is the Managing Director thereof.3. Respondent No. 1 is a partner of the firm Messrs Finiti Times having its business address at 1, Plaza Cinema Building, H-Block, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi.4. In September/October, 1996 respondent No. 1 had supplied watches worth Rs. 16,55,559/- to the respondent No. 2 company vide three invoices dated 16.9.1996, 7.10.1996 and 8.10.1996. Respondent No. 2, acting as Managing Director of the...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar and Etc. Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1644
ORDERKuldip Chand Sood, J.1. This order will dispose of these two petitions, titled as Manoj Kumar v. State of H. P. (Cr. M. P. M. No. 146 of 2002) and Shashi Kumar v. State of H. P. (Cr. M. P. (M) No. 147 of 2002) for the grant of bail. Both the petitions raise common question of law and facts.2. It appears a case for offences punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Drugs Act' for short) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered with Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, on 4-5-2001 in terms of FIR No. 58 of 2001.3. Prosecution case appears to be that on 4-5-2001 Bus No. PB-11N-3818 of Punjab Roadways Corporation was intercepted by ASI Jagdish Kumar at 11.30 a.m. in Sector VI at Parwanoo. The bus was bound to Bhatinda from Shimla. The bus was checked. There were 10-12 passengers. Accused Manoj Kumar was sitting on seat No. 19. He had a pull over on his lap. When the said pull over was checked, it was found that t...
Tag this Judgment!Kanwar Singh and anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3501
ORDERM.R. Verma, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as 'the Code') has been directed against the order dated 15-10-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, whereby he had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 454 of the Code against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, confiscating the case property, subject matter of theft in Criminal Case No. 17/2 of 1999/97 against the petitioners, in favour of the State.2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this petition are that the petitioners were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jubbal, on a charge under Sections 379 and 188 IPC. The allegations against them were that they had removed the apple crop from an orchard for which Tehsildar, Jubbal was appointed a Receiver. On trial, the learned Magistrate found the petitioners not guilty and accordingly acquitted them of the charge. However, the sale ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shila Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002ACJ1710
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has assailed the award dated 21.8.91 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Una, whereby the claim petition of the respondents-claimants was allowed and an amount of Rs. 1,17,600 was awarded as compensation along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the petition till the date of decision. The liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the appellant insurance company.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.3. Denying its liability the case of the appellant insurance company has been that the vehicle in question was being used for a purpose other than agriculture, which amounts to violation of one of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance absolving it from any liability under the policy.4. In order to appreciate this submission we will first examine the pleadings and evidence. In para 22 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nupur Vs. Sandeep Sud
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC438
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. Applicant has filed a petition under QtUer 33 of the C.P.C. for permitting her to sue as an indigent person. Relief claimed in the petition is for the grant of maintenance under the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Along with this petition an application for grant of interim maintenance during the pendency of these proceedings, as well as the suit in the event of permission being allowed, has also been filed.2. According to the petitioner marriage between the parties was solemnised in the year 1999. Averments made by her are that she was maltreated, harassed and cruelty was perpetrated at her. She also has made allegations of dowry being demanded from her. On this ground FIR No. 88 was lodged at Police Station, Dhali in April, 2001.3. Thus it was under compelling circumstances which is the creation of respondent and his family members, that she was forced to leave her matrimonial home on 9.3.2001. In this background, it is further alleged t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »