Himachal Pradesh Court November 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.
Narinder Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC274
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner herein praying for the change of his date of birth in the service record.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined service on 12.2.1976 as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master at Giora, Branch Post Office, Jassur, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra.3. The age of superannuation for Extra Departmental Branch Post Master is 65 years. In the service record maintained by the respondents, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 2nd December, 1940. The petitioner was thus due to retire on 31.12.2005. It appears that somewhere in 2004 or 2005 the petitioner moved an application for correction of his date of birth. According to him, his date of birth had wrongly been entered in the office records as 2nd December, 1940 whereas his actual date of birth is 1.12.1943. The department rejected the claim of ...
Smt. Chaitru and anr. Vs. Kali Dass and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ShimLC356
Surjit Singh, J.1. The dispute in the present appeal pertains to the Will of deceased Labhu, who died issueless. The present appellants-plaintiffs, who are the daughters of two nephews of said Labhu, filed a suit for declaration that they had inherited the estate of Labhu to the extent of 2/3rd share alongwith respondent-defendant Kali Dass, who, being the son of one of the abovesaid nephews of Labhu, namely Tulku, was also an agnate and had inherited the estate of Labhu to the extent of 1/3rd share.2. Suit was contested by respondent-defendant No. 1 Kali Dass. He set-up a Will purportedly executed by Labhu on 6.12.1984. Some preliminary issues were also raised.3. Trial Court framed various issues based on the pleadings of the parties and then proceeded to try the case. At the end of the trial, it was concluded that Labhu had made a Will in favour of respondent-defendant No. 1. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. Appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs in the Court of District Judg...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC772,2007ACJ2508,[2007(114)FLR293],2007(1)ShimLC143
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is directed against the order dated 27.3.2006 of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act, Theog whereby in case No. 8/2004 he has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,03,320/- and interest of Rs. 1,08,896/- total Rs. 5,12,216/- in favour of the claimants and has held the Insurance Company liable to pay the amount.2. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the cover note which was issued on 18.12.2003 at 9 p.m. specifying the insurance coverage to be effective from 19.12.2003 to 19.12.2004, could it be deemed that insurance coverage had become effective from mid-night of 18.12.2003?(2) Whether impugned Award ordering indemnification of insured/owner of vehicle by mulcting the liability of amount of compensation payable to the claimants on the insurance company is legal and justified when there was no effective insurance coverage at the time of accident?(3) Whether the...
Mahant Rajinder Gir Vs. the Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) and anr ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC134
Surjit Singh, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment of the first appellate Court, whereby affirming the decree of dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff passed by the trial Court, the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed.2. Relevant facts may be noticed first. Plaintiff-appellant, who is Mahant of Baba Balak Nath Temple, Deot Sidh, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, filed a suit for declaration that he was owner of the properties, comprised in khewat No. 383, khatoni No. 474, Khasra Nos. 2302/904, 2303/904, 915, measuring 24 Kanals 2 Marias, situated in Tikka Chakmoh, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, hereinafter called suit property and that the order dated 6.12.1998, passed by the Financial Commissioner, ordering the incorporation of the aforesaid property in the register of temple property, under Section 6 of the H.P. Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was illegal, void and hence not bind...
Ramesh Chand Vs. Ravinder Singh Chandel
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC634,2007CriLJ1313,2007(1)ShimLC270
ORDERDeepak Gupta, J.1. The short question which arises in this petition is whether notice issued to the respondent in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was served upon him or whether it can be deemed that such notice was actually served upon him.2. Without going into the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint, according to the complainant, the respondent herein had raised a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-from him and had agreed to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. As per the complaint the respondent had issued a cheque for Rs. 1,54.000/-on 17-9-2000 in favour of the complainant In consideration of the above loan. The complainant presented this cheque through his Bank which was dishonored on 5-10-2000. Thereafter the complainant got issued a notice (Ext. C-3) to the respondent through his lawyer. This notice was issued to respondent-Ravinder Singh Chandel at his admitted address i.e. Village and P.O. Jhanduta, Tehsil Jhanduta, Dis...
Fateh Mohammed Vs. Sher Khan and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ShimLC101
Surjit Singh, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, whereby, reversing the decree of the trial Court, the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction, which he instituted against the respondents-defendants, has been dismissed.2. Relevant facts may be noticed first. Appellant-plaintiff and respondents Sher Khan, Chuhra Khan and late Sarwar Ali, now represented by his LRs. are the sons of late Shri Faiz Mohammed, who died in the year 1946. Deceased respondent Sabratan, who was impleaded as defendant No. 4, was the widow of said Faiz Mohammed, or say the mother of the plaintiff and the above-named respondents-defendants. Faiz Mohammed had some understanding with the owners that the suit land and some other land, total area of which was around 47-48 bighas and was part of river-bed, would be reclaimed by him and after reclamation he would be allowed to cultivate that land. In lieu of rent, he was...
Ved Prakash Vs. Bhupia and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1874,AIR2007HP34,2007(1)ShimLC258
ORDERDeepak Gupta, J.1. The only question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the amount deposited by the appellant-owner from time to time in pursuance to an award passed by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has first to be adjusted towards interest or costs or to the principal amount as awarded by the Tribunal.2. The law is well settled that under the provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure the payments, if any, made by the JD have first to be adjusted towards the amount of costs and interest and only thereafter towards the principal amount due unless the parties have agreed and specified to the contrary, This position of law has been settled by the Apex Court in Meghraj v. Mst. Bayabai : [1970]1SCR523 wherein has been held as follows:The normal rule in the case of a debt due with interest is that any payment made by the debtor is in the first instance to be applied towards satisfaction of interest and thereafter to the principal.3. In the present ...
New India Assurance Co. Vs. Shri Kant
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC456,2007ACJ1058,AIR2007HP27,2006(3)ShimLC98
Surjit Singh, J. 1. This appeal, by the Insurance Company, is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby compensation awarded for the death of one Dalip Singh in an accident of car No. UPT-6397, which was insured with the appellant for third party risk, has been ordered to be paid by it (the appellant).2. Relevant facts may be summed up first. Deceased Dalip Singh, aged 25 years, along-with his father respondent Chet Ram, was travelling by car No. UPT-6397, owned by respondent Manish Kumar, when it met with an accident resulting in the death of Dalip Singh as also the driver of the car. In the petition it was alleged that the deceased and his father Chet Ram had paid fare for travelling by the car. In the FIR also, which is duly proved and which had been lodged by Chet Ram, respondent (father of the deceased), it was stated that the car had been engaged as taxi by respondent Chet Ram. The accident was alleged to have taken place due to rash driving of the...
Jagtar Singh Vs. the Chief Settlement Commissioner and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ShimLC1
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. Vide order dated 14th September, 2006, respondents No. 4 to 8 were set ex-parte.2. Vide the impugned order dated 13th April, 2006, the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) summarily disposed of Revenue Revision No. 96 of 2001 only on the ground that since the aforesaid revision petition had been filed under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Central Act No. 44/1954) and because the said Act had been repealed by the Displaced Persons Claims and other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (Central Act No. 38/2005) and since there was no saving Clause in the aforesaid repealing Act, the revision petition was not maintainable.3. Apparently, the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was not aware of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act No. 10 of 1897) which very clearly stipulates and lays down that despite repeal of any Central Act, such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment repealed, or an...
Ram Pyara Etc. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC126
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, by this common judgment all these petitions are being disposed of together.2. A very short point is involved for consideration in these cases.3. Show cause notices were issued against the petitioners by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur Forest Division, alleging therein that the petitioners had not exported the forest produce through the land route(s) mentioned in the permits as no entries of the petitioners' permits had been found in the registers maintained at the concerned check posts. The Divisional Forest Officer accordingly felt that the petitioners had pilferaged the forest produce some where by indulging in illegal trade. The operative part of the notices stated as under:Before further action is taken against you as per rules you are given an opportunity to show cause the reasons within fifteen days for not following land route mentioned in the export permit besides authenticating the place of con...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »