Himachal Pradesh Court January 2006 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.
Prabhi Devi and ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006HP72,2006(1)ShimLC297
V.M. Jain, J.1. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned two appeals against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed and the cross suit filed by the other side was decreed by the trial Court and the appeals filed by the present appellants were dismissed by the learned District Judge.2. The facts, which are relevant for the decision of these appeals, are that one suit was filed by the present appellants Smt. Prabhi Devi etc. against the present respondents. It was a suit for declaration and injunction. It was alleged in the said suit that Harnam Singh deceased was the owner in possession of the suit property and that he had expired interstate at Delhi, it was alleged that the defendants were claiming the suit property left by Harnam Singh, on the basis of a false Will dated 1.9.1993 in favour of defendants No.l to 3. It was alleged that in fact Harnam Singh deceased had never executed any such Will in favour of defendan...
Khoja Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2093,2006(1)ShimLC332
K.C. Sood, J.1. Appellant Khoja Ram (Accused for short), was tried and convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court Kangra at Dharamshala. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of rupees 10,000/-. In case of default in the payment of fine, the accused is to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months, by his judgment dated February 18, 2005.2. Dis-satisfied the accused is in this appeal. Prosecution case :3. Anita Devi, hereinafter referred to as the 'victim', was twenty years of age at the relevant time. On May 11, 2002, her sister-in-law Usha Devi (PW4) alongwith her husband had gone to attend the marriage. When she returned back from the wedding at about 6.30 P.M., she gave a packet of sweets to the prosecutrix to deliver it in the house of Rania Ram and also buy and bring soap from the shop but the victim did not return back till about 9.00 P.M. Usha Devi...
Krishan Lal and ors. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ314HP,2006(1)ShimLC430
K.C. Sood, J.1. The petitioners are the employees of respondent No, 1, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., a body of the Government of India undertaking.2. The grievance of the petitioners is:3. They have been transferred from their present place of posting to the hard areas in Himachal Pradesh by the respondents on pick and choose basis.4. The petitioners are working as linemen, re-designated as Telecom Mechanics. The respondents do not have any set policy of transfer for its employees. Even though the consistent practice had been to transfer the employees on the basis of their seniority and stay at a particular place, while doing so their earlier places of postings are taken into consideration. It is the further case of the petitioners that all of them have crossed the age of 50 years or about to reach that age. All of them have served the remotest areas of Himachal Pradesh, yet they have been picked up once again to serve in the hard/tribal areas of Himachal Pradesh by the impugned order dat...
Dayal Singh Vs. Smt. Rukmi Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC84
V.M. Jain, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Dayal Singh, plaintiff-appellant, against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by Dayal Singh, plaintiff, was also dismissed by the learned District Judge.2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that Harnam Singh and Dayal Singh, plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants, with the allegations that the plaintiffs were the joint owners in possession along with the defendants in respect of the suit land. It was alleged that in the year 1981, a suit was filed titled as Amar Singh and Ors. v. Anokhi Ram and Ors. and the same was decided by Rajgarh Court on 29.3.1988 on the basis of a compromise. It was alleged that the said compromise was null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs, on the ground that the said compromise was based on the statement of...
Prem Singh and anr. Vs. Gobindu and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC87
V.M. Jain, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2005 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the Collector was directed to consider the question afresh and decide the same within six months, keeping in view the observations made in the judgment.2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that Gobindu, plaintiff, had filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be owner in possession of the suit land and that the said land was washed away during floods in 1976, whereupon he applied for exchange of the Government land comprised in Khasra No. 322/304/1 belonging to the State Government. It was alleged that the Patwari Halqua in connivance with defendant No. 2 committed mischief and prepared wrong Tatima in respect of the land comprised in Khasra No. 320/304, which was a Dhank and was incapable of cultivation and it was further ...
Jerath Electronics Shogi Vs. the State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2006HP67,2006(1)ShimLC307
K.C. Sood, J.1. The petitioner M/s Jerath Electronics Private Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act with its registered office at Shogi in Tehsil and District Shimla. Parkash Chand Jerath, an Ex servicemen, is its Managing Director,2. The petitioner company has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the non-release of certain incentives under the Revised Rules for grant of incentives to the Industrial Units in Himachal Pradesh, 1991 ('1991 Rules' for short).3. The case of the petitioner Company is that the Managing Director of the Company retired from the Indian Army as Maj. General and set up his unit for manufacture of Digital Telephone (modern technology) in Electronics and Computer at Shogi in the year 1989 and registration certificate was accordingly granted to him. In the year 1991, the respondent-State in the Department of Industries revised the rules regarding grant of incentives to industrial units known as '1991 Rules' under wh...
Bhupinder Kumar and ors. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ShimLC322
Surjit Singh, J.1. Through the present writ petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of communication dated 28.5.2005, whereby their representation for de-notifying the acquisition of their property has been rejected and also Annexures P-10, P-11 and P-11/A, i.e. notification under Section 4, declaration under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act and the award of the Collector respectively, pertaining to the land of the petitioners, besides seeking s restraint order against the respondents from interfering in their possession over the property, sought to be got released from acquisition.2. Certain property of the petitioners, described in the writ petition, was notified for acquisition in the year 1977. A writ petition, seeking the quashing of that notification, was filed soon after the issuance of the said notification, which was registered as CWP No. 43 of 1977. The Government issued another notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, for the acquisition of ...
(Smt.) Satya Devi Vs. Partap Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: AIR2006HP75,2006(1)ShimLC312
V.M. Jain, J.1. This regular second appeal has been filed by defendant-appellant Smt Satya Devi against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the two suits, one filed by Partap Singh and the other Smt. Suhli Devi were decreed and the sale deed in favour of Smt. Satya Devi was held to be illegal and void and the appeal filed by Smt. Satya Devi, was dismissed by the learned District Judge.2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that two suits were filed before the trial Court. One suit was filed by Partap Singh plaintiff against Smt. Suhli Devi Smt. Satya Devi and Milkhi Ram, as defendants. It was a suit for possession by way of specific performance. The other suit was filed by Smt. Suhli Devi plaintiff against Milkhi Ram, Smt. Satya Devi and Partap Singh as defendants. It was a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. Both the suits were consolidated, vide order dated 20.9.1995 and it was direc...
Bindra Devi Chauhan Vs. State of H.P. and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2533,AIR2006HP91
Surjit Singh, J. 1. Appellant Bindra Devi, hereinafter called plaintiff, is aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated July 23, 1998, of the learned single Judge of this Court, whereby her suit for damages, to the tune of rupees ten lacs, which she filed against the respondents-State of H. P. and the Collector, hereinafter called as defendants, has been dismissed.2. The cause of action, or which the claim of the plaintiff was based, may be summed up thus. The plaintiff had a house on two Biswas of area, bearing Khasra Nos. 1318/1221 situate in Notified Area Committee, Chopal. It was a three-storeyed house, having ten rooms. On one side of this house, at a lower level, there was a school playground. The defendants with a view to expanding the said school ground and developing it into a stadium, started excavation towards the house of the plaintiff. Bulldozers were pressed into service to do the excavation work. No precautionary measures were taken to protect the aforesaid house and the...
Sh. Bharat Darshan and ors. Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)ShimLC375
V.K. Jhanji, J.1. The writ petition is directed against order dated May 18, 2005, passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla, whereby respondent-Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereafter referred to as 'the Board') has been directed to reckon the seniority of respondent No. 2 from the year 1987 and that of respondent No. 3 from the year 1988, as approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereafter referred to as 'the DPC') in its meeting held in 1994.2. In brief, the facts are that respondents 2 and 3 had been working as Junior Engineers in the Board since 1965. During the course of their service, they acquired AMIE qualification. Accordingly they were promoted as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis in 1987 and 1988 respectively against the quota meant for Junior Engineers with AMIE qualification. It is not in dispute that for the category of Junior Engineers with AMIE qualification, quota prescribed was 6% under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1983....