Himachal Pradesh Court August 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.
Chhabu Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ723
ORDERSurjit Singh, J. 1. This is an appeal by a man, more than 60 years of age, who has bconvicted of and sentenced for committing rape on his own minor grand-daughter (son's daughter). Grievance of the appellant is that the conviction is not justified in view of the contradictions, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution and long delay in the lodging of the report.2. The prosecutrix hails from a village in Tehsil Rampur. Her date of birth is 5-12-1989. Her parents often remain away from the village to work as labourers in forests located in far off areas. In June, 2003 also her parents were away from the house as they had gone to Chopal side to work as labourers in a forest. In their absence, the appellant is alleged to have committed rape on the prosecutrix on 29-6-2003, when she had gone to a forest adjacent to her village, to graze cattle. The appellant is also alleged to have gone to graze his cattle in the same forest on the aforesaid day. Thereafter,...
State of H.P. Vs. Siri Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1008
Surjit Singh, J.1. The State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21-12-1998 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, whereby judgment dated 26-5-1993 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur convicting and sentencing respondent-Siri Ram, hereinafter called accused of an offence, under Section 16(1)(a)(i), read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, has been set aside and the said accused has been acquitted.2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be summed up thus. On 27-9-1990, Food Inspector, P.W. 1 Sh. I.D. Verma, took a sample of milk from the accused. The sample was divided into three parts and each part was poured into a separate dry and clean bottle and the bottles were labelled and sealed, as per requirement of law. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst along with Form No. 7. The Public Analyst reported that the milk did not conform to the minimum prescribed standards and as such i...
Cement Corporation of India Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ShimLC4
K.C. Sood, J.1. The question raised in this petition is whether the respondent No. 1 State of Himachal Pradesh is competent to levy sales tax on the royalty payable by the Petitioner, a lessee, for the extraction of the mineral, i.e., lime stone in this case under the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act2. In order to appreciate the controversy, relevant facts may be noticed:3. Petitioner Cement Corporation of India is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and is a registered dealer under the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner company manufactures cement and for that purpose, use lime stone as raw material in large quantities. The petitioner took a lease of about 794 Hects. land in village Manal and other adjoining areas under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Under the mining lease, the petitioner is to pay royalty to the respo...
State of H.P. Vs. Jagar Nath
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: 2006FAJ146,2006(1)ShimLC109
Surjit Singh, J.1. The present appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh is directed against the judgment dated 30.12.1998 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur whereby an appeal filed by respondent Jagar Nath, hereinafter called accused, against the judgment dated 24.5.1993 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, convicting and sentencing the accused of an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been accepted and he (the deceased) has been acquitted of the said offence.2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. The accused was intercepted by the Food Inspector, Bilaspur on 20.1.1991 at a place called Beri (Harkhar) when he was carrying 40 kilograms milk in cans on a motor-cycle. A sample of milk was taken from him. The sample was divided into three parts and each part of the sample was poured into a separate bottle and the bottles were stoppered, wrapped and sealed as per re...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Piari Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC740
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu (hereafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MAC Petition No. 16 of 1997, decided on 26.4.1999.2. The facts necessary for decision of the case are that the claimants are the legal heirs of Narender Singh. According to the allegations made by them in the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') the deceased had hired tractor No. HP-49-0317, which is owned by Lotam Ram. He had hired this tractor to collect pine cones. The tractor at the relevant time is stated to be driven by Gulab Singh. As per the averments, the deceased had gone to village Tung to collect pine cones but the same had not been collected and stacked by the labourers, therefore, he was coming back in the empty tractor which met with an accident resulting, in death of Narender Singh.3. The owner of the tractor denied the accident. He ...
Mohi Ram Vs. Surat Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ2670
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of five appeals, being F.A.O. (MVA) Nos. 119, 121, 125, 126 and 133 of 1999, as they arise out of the same accident and the same award and a similar question is involved in all these appeals.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals that appellant Mohi Ram (in all the appeals) is the owner of jeep No. HP-08 0039. On 10.7.1996, the deceased Shukru, Poshi, Yash Pal, Kharak Bahadur, Amrita Devi, Subhadra, Om Prakash and injured Kul Prashad hired the aforesaid jeep on payment of Rs. 800. They had to go to Chuhardhar Temple and return to Chopal. After visiting the temple on the return journey the jeep met with accident and went off the road. A number of persons died in the accident and some suffered injuries. One common claim petition was filed claiming compensation on account of death of Shukru, his wife Poshi and son Yash Pal. The claim petitions were also filed with regard to the other victims.3. Initially, in the claim petiti...
State of H.P. Vs. Amar Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ShimLC1
Surjit Singh, J.1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal, passed in favour of the respondents by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kangra.2. One Des Raj lodged a report to the police on 9.10.1991 that on the previous night around 10.30 p.m., when he returned to his place of residence after day's work, he saw that Amar Singh, respondent No. 1, his neighbour, had made an encroachment on a portion of his court-yard, while raising a Danga. He further reported that when he asked Amar Singh, respondent No. 1 as to why the encroachment had been made, the latter started hurling abuses at him and soon his son Vinod Kumar, respondent No. 3 and wife Makhani Devi, respondent No. 2 appeared on the scene. It was also reported that Vinod Kumar, respondent No. 3 was armed with a hockey-stick and he dealt a blow of the hockey-stick on Des Raj's head and another blow on his arm. The police got said Des Raj medically examined. It was found that his arm, on which a hoc...
In Re: Morepen Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: [2006]130CompCas368(HP)
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. A petition under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was filed by M/s. Morepen Laboratories Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), having its registered office at Morepen Village, Nalagarh Road, Near Baddi, District Solan. After having examined the same and on being satisfied, on June 28, 2004, following order was passed :28-6-2004 Present : Shri Sanjay Karol,Sr. Advocate with Sh. Gaurav Khannaand Sh. Aman Sood, Advocates,for the petitioner-company.Heard learned Counsel.This is a petition under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner-company has filed this petition stating that its registered office is situate at Morepen Village, Nalagarh Road, Near Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. This petition is supported with the affidavit of Sh. P. K. Singh, authorised signatory on behalf of the petitioner-company in terms of annexure P1, copy of resolution passed by its board of directors in...
Shiv Ram Vs. Nuratta and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2006HP47,2006(1)ShimLC97
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1-r of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 29.4.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in CMP No. 138 of 2005.2. The facts necessary for the decision of the case are that the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in joint possession in equal shares of land measuring 4.5 bighas comprised in Khewat No. 29, Khatauni No. 22, Khasra No. 3, situated at village Bhatoli, Pargana Bahadurpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) not to interfere in the peaceful ownership and possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land.3. The appellant took up the plea that Lekh Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had sold the suit land to the defendant and handed over the possession of the property to the defendant. It was also ...
Kamal Kant and ors. Vs. General Public and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: AIR2006HP45
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. What is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the impugned order dated 21st May, 2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this petition may stated as under:One Neeraj Kumar, who was serving in the Army, had died intestate and consequent upon his death his mother Smt. Kanta Devi filed a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of a succession certificate. In this petition the widow of deceased-Neeraj Kumar was the only contesting respondent, in effect and substance, because the other two respondents were the 'General Public' and 'Zila Sainik Board, Hamirpur.' During the pendency of the aforesaid petition before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur the sole petitioner-Smt. Kanta Devi, the mother of deceased-Neeraj Kumar died. On 21st May, 2004 when the petition was fixe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›