Himachal Pradesh Court March 2003 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.
H.P. Financial Corporation Vs. Continental Spinners Ltd. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC280,2003CriLJ2750
ORDERM.R. Verma, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter referred to as 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 13.11.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (II), Shimla, in Complaint Case No. 77/8 of 1900, dismissing the complaint for default of appearance by the complainant.2. The brief facts leading to the presentation of this petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint against respondents 1 and 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 23.8.1999 found that there were reasons to proceed against respondents 1 and 2, therefore, ordered issue of summons to them. Thereafter, summons were issued but the service could not be effected. The matter remained pending for service of the said respondents because sometimes they could not be served and at times the complainant failed to t...
Trilok Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3134
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. While disposing of the present application filed under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we are concerned with two issues involved for consideration. First is relatable to the claim of the applicant for being paid the price of 94 trees as was fetched in auction and the second is with respect to the interest accrued on the aforesaid claim, because the amount has been lying in fixed deposit.2. Shorn of the unnecessary details, suffice it to say that a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 28-4-1995 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1985 while partly allowing the appeal of the applicant directed that out of the total auction amount of Rs. 1,07,000/- for 212 trees, the applicant be proportionally paid the amount towards the price of 94 trees in the said auction. For ready reference we quote herein-below the operative part of the aforesaid judgment, which reads thus :'In View of the foregoing reasons present appeal is partly accepted and as a conse...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dulari Sharma and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC673,2003ACJ1606
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. This appeal has been filed by insurance company challenging the award passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1), Shimla. By means of impugned award in M.A.C. No. 54-S/2 of 1991, dated 25.10.1994, a sum of Rs. 38,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition (i.e., 31.8.1991) has been passed in favour of respondent and against the appellant.2. At the time of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company stated that the scooter in question owned by respondent No. 2 Vijay Singh Jamwal, its being insured with his client, is not disputed. Sole ground raised by him in support of this appeal was that admittedly as well, as on proved facts deceased Gauri Nand Sharma was a pillion rider on the scooter bearing registration No. HP 07-0924. This was owned by the respondent Vijay Singh Jamwal and as already noted insured with it (appellant).3. With a view to advance appella...
Dalip Singh Vs. Ram Nath and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2984
R.L. Khurana, J.1. In Regular Second Appeal No. 72/2001 arising out of a suit between the parties for specific performance of an agreement to sell, this Court on 12-4-2001 in an application, being CMP No. 117 of 2001 made under Order 41, Rule 5 and Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, by the appellant/petitioner, had passed an order in the following terms:--'Reply is stated to have been filed with the Registry on 26th March, 2001. Office to place the same on the record, if in order. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the respondents shall verify and in case the reply is lying under objection, to remove the same forthwith.Heard. The operation of the impugned judgment and decree shall remain stayed pending the appeal and the parties are directed to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the land in dispute pending appeal. The application stands disposed of.Dasti copy on usual terms.'2. On 2-5-2001, the present petition was made the appellant/petitioner under...
Pratap Singh Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2874
ORDERR.L. Khurana, J.1. The petitioner, Partap singh, upon having been tried for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Trial No. 17-S/7 of 1992/89 by the learned Sessions Judge (Forests), exercising the powers of Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, came to be convicted for the offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 23-3-1993. Upon such conviction, the learned trial Court instead of imposing any sentence upon the petitioner granted him the benefit of Section 4, Probation of Offenders Act and ordered his release on probation for a period of one year on his executing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety to the like amount and during the period of such probation he was directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour.2. The allegations against the petitioner vide FIR No. 197/89 Police Station Sadar, Shimla were that on 1-9-1989 at about 5.30 p.m. at the Mall, Shimla, he had attacked Shri A.N. Sharma, the then Superintende...
Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: [2004]50SCL171(HP)
ORDER1. This revision-petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been preferred by the petitioners-accused (hereafter referred to as 'the petitioners') against the order dated 25-5-2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla in Criminal Case No. 403/99 whereby notice of accusation under Section 146/628 of the Companies Act has been ordered to be put to the petitioners.2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this petition are that the complainant/respondent No. 1 (hereafter referred to as the complainant) filed a complaint against the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 under Sections 146 and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956. The case of the complainant as made out in the complaint is that as per the particulars filed with the office of the complainant-respondent No. 2 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at Wood Land House, New Land Estate, Ci...
Vijay Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: [2004]118CompCas604(HP)
M.R. Verma, J.1. This revision petition under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter referred to as 'the Code'), has been preferred by the petitioners accused (hereafter referred to as 'the petitioners') against the order dated May 25, 2002, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, in Criminal Case No. 403 of 1999 whereby notice of accusation under Section 146/628 of the Companies Act has been ordered to be put to the petitioners.2. The brief facts leading to the presentation of this petition are that the complainant/respondent No. 1 (hereafter referred to as 'the complainant') filed a complaint against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 under sections 146 and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956. The case of the complainant as made out in the complaint is that as per the particulars filed with the office of the complainant respondent No. 2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at W...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›