Himachal Pradesh Court June 2005 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.
In Re: Himachal Advanced Circuits Limited
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas901(HP)
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), forwarded its opinion formed under Section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions Act), 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SICA'), as required under Section 20(2) thereof to this Court.2. M/s. Himachal Advanced Circuits Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), having become a sick industrial company within the meaning of the SICA, approached the BIFR. Its reference was registered as Case No. 16 of 1998. On September 14, 1999, on being satisfied under Section 20(1) of this Act that the company needs to be prima facie wound up, show cause notice was issued calling for objections and suggestions. It was also mentioned in this order that the promoters were still at liberty to submit their revival plan to the operating agency and the BIFR within the time specified in the show cause notice. A direction was issued to the operating agency that in case such a proposal is given b...
Baldev Raj Vs. Bimla Sharma
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2006HP33,I(2006)DMC92
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the husband under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 3/D/III/93, decided on 21.6.1996 dismissing the petition of the husband.2. The husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights or in the alternative for grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act.3. The facts, as alleged, were that the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rights at Talwara on 7.8.1988. It was alleged that about 7 months after the marriage, the respondent left her matrimonial home. After the intervention of some respectable persons she again joined company of the petitioner in May, 1989, but again left his company after one week. According to the petitioner he also sought the help of Family Counselling Centre, but with no fru...
Hukmabati and ors. Vs. Punjab Roadways and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC837,2006ACJ260
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal under 1988 for enhancement of compensation is Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), passed in M.A.C. Case No. 36 of 1996; decided on 19.5.1998.2. The facts relevant for decision of the case are that deceased Shiv Kumar who was aged about 15 years at the time of the accident and studying in class 10th was travelling in the jeep No. HRK 4722 on 16.4.1996. This jeep was hit by bus No. PB 12-A 8216 belonging to Punjab Roadways, respondent No. 1 and driven by Paras Ram, respondent No. 3. The deceased after the accident was shifted to District Hospital, Bilaspur where he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.3. The mother and one minor sister of the deceased filed a claim petition for grant of compensation with regard to the death of the deceased. The Punjab Roadways contested the petition. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanbir Kumar and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC20,2006ACJ1540
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner insurer has challenged the judgment and award dated 31.3.2004 passed in M.A.C. Petition No. 147-N/2 of 2001 whereby claimant-respondent No. 1, has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,000 for having sustained 'simple injuries'. Whereas respondent No. 1 in this petition was the claimant before Claims Tribunal, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein were the owner and the driver respectively of the vehicle involved in the accident.2. Common ground between the parties is that an accident involving vehicle No. HR 37-3920 occurred on 21.2.2001 allegedly due to rash and negligent driving of this vehicle by its driver, Baryam Singh, respondent No. 3.3. The respondent No. 1 and various other persons were travelling in this bus at the time of the mishap. All these persons claiming to have been injured in this accident filed their individual claim petitions arid by a common judgment/award the Tribunal di...
Mittar Singh Vs. Gian Chand and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC52,2006ACJ959
Deepak Gupta, J.1. By this judgment three appeals being F.A.O. Nos. 367, 368 and 369 of 1997 are being disposed of as they arise out of the same accident and similar awards. The questions involved in all the three cases are identical.2. Facts necessary for decision of these appeals are that on 25.11.1996 the claimants in all the three cases were travelling in bus No. HP 18-4445. This bus is owned by appellant Mittar Singh. The bus was being driven by Ravinder Singh, respondent No. 2. The claimants filed separate claim petitions for grant of compensation. The owner and driver in their reply did not dispute the factum of the accident. It was averred that the accident took place due to sudden mechanical defect. It was also stated that the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3 and as such the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation.3. The insurance company in its reply took up the plea that the vehicle in question was not insured with it at the...
Julmi Devi Vs. Ravi Kumar
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC210
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the wife against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20 of 2002 dated 27.10.2004 whereby he has granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.2. The facts of the case necessary for decision of the appeal are that the marriage between the parties took place on 13.12.1988. One daughter was born out of the wed-lock. After the birth of the daughter the wife left for her parental village to live with her parents. According to the allegations made in the petition for grant of divorce, the wife from the very beginning, was not interested in living with the husband and she did not permit the husband to have sexual relations with her. The wife was employed whereas the husband was unemployed at that time.3. The wife was earlier posted at village Garli and was residing there. Thereafter the wife was transferred to village Chuhaku which w...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishan Chand and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC866,2006ACJ1754
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of two appeals being F.A.O. Nos. 99 and 100 of 1998 as they arise out of the same accident and the same award.2. The facts necessary for decision of the case are that on 11.10.1994 at about 12.30 noon Krishan Chand was driving a motor cycle. His brother-in-law Nasib Singh was sitting on the pillion. This motor cycle met with an accident with tractor No. PCH 5539. Both Krishan Chand and Nasib Singh filed claim petitions on the ground that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petitions and awarded a sum of Rs. 44,000 in favour of Krishan Chand and Rs. 50,000 in favour of Nasib Singh. The tractor was insured with the appellant insurance company and it has been made liable to pay the compensation.3. These appeals have been filed by the insurance company. The main contention raised on behalf of the insurance company is that the tractor at the relevant tim...
Rohit Walia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC64,2006ACJ1795
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the award of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (Rural), Shimla in Case No. 3 of 1995 whereby he dismissed the petition filed by the claimant.2. The allegations in the claim were that claimant Rohit Walia had been employed by his brother, Ramesh Kumar, as a driver on Swaraj Mazda No. HIS 3093. It was further alleged that while he was driving the said vehicle, the same met with an accident on 7.1.1994 resulting in serious injuries to the claimant. As a result of injuries, he suffered 100 per cent disability. The owner of the vehicle did not deny the relationship of employer and employee and also did not deny the wages being paid to the deceased. It was, however, submitted that since the vehicle was duly insured, the liability to pay compensation is that of the insurance company. The insurance company took up various pleas. One of the pleas t...
Parmodh Ram and ors. Vs. Rajinder Parshad and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2006HP30
ORDERV.M. Jain, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the legal representatives of Nand Lal plaintiff against the orders passed by the Courts below whereby the learned trial Court had ordered the dismissal of the suit as having abated and the appeal filed by the legal representative of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge.2. The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition, are that Nand Lal plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration etc. against the defendants, who were 31 in number. There are two written statements on the record. One written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 while the other written statement was filed on behalf of defendants No. 2, 17 and 31. The legal representatives of defendant No. 26 were also represented by a counsel, though no written statement appears to have been filed either by defendant No. 26 or by his legal representatives. The other defendants were proceeded against ex parte...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›