Himachal Pradesh Court October 2004 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.
Shirish Batra Vs. Pal Transport Company and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ1447
V.K. Gupta, C.J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.3.1998 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Solan District at Solan in M.A.C. Petition No. 15-NS/2 of 1993. Even though this appeal has been filed at the instance of two appellants, namely, Shirish Batra, minor through his father Sharat Batra and Sharat Batra himself, Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted and stated before me that the appeal insofar as it relates to the appellant No. 2 Sharat Batra may be treated as not pressed and rightly so because admittedly, in view of the explicit legal position as contained in Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claim petition before the Tribunal is maintainable only by or at the instance of the person injured in the accident and not by a third party. Through the medium of this appeal, appellant Shirish Batra seeks the enhancement of the compensat...
Smt. Kesari Devi and anr. Vs. Jagdev Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1091,II(2005)DMC704
ORDERK.C. Sood 1. This revision petition arises out of the orders of learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharmshala, dated 18-12-2003.2. In order to appreciate the controversy, relevant facts may be noticed ;3. Respondent Kesari Devi (wife for short) was married to petitioner Jagdev Singh (husband for short). Wife laid a petition against the husband before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dharamshala, for the grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The maintenance was claimed for herself and her daughter, born out of the wedlock. Wife claimed that she was living separately, due to maltreatment of the husband. Husband admittedly is working as Head Draftsman in the office of Central Water Commission at Delhi and receiving approximately salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month.4. This petition was resisted by the husband on the grounds :(a) Wife left the Company of the husband along with the daughter. Husband filed a petition at Delhi, whi...
Ranjit Singh Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ972
ORDERK.C. Sood, J.1. The petitioner is a juvenile, within the meaning of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, was arrested on 11th September, 2004, in a case registered with Police Station Arki for an offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in terms of FIR No. 116/ 2004, dated 8th September, 2004.2. According to the prosecution case :Victim an eleven years old girl had gone to fields to cut grass alongwith her cousin about 14 years of age. When they were cutting grass, petitioner came and asked the help of Kamlesh Kumar to assist him in lifting a bundle of grass. Thereafter, the accused invited the victim to cut grass from his Ghasani. She accompanied him to the Ghasani. Petitioner removed the salwar worn by the victim and also his pant and laid upon her. She raised alarm. The petitioner then put on his pant and ran aw...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›