Himachal Pradesh Court December 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.
Ved Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC152
Surjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record.One kilogram 'Charas' was recovered from the applicant by the police during the search of his person. The quantity is not commercial but between small and commercial and hence the offence is punishable, under Section 20 (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The maximum punishment prescribed is ten years imprisonment and fine, which may extend to Rupees one lac. Therefore, the bar in the matter of grant of bail, contained in Section 37 of the Act, is not attracted, because Section 37 comes in the way of grant of bail where the offence involves commercial quantity.2. Investigation of the case is complete. Police does not now require the custody of the applicant. Hence the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu. The order is subject t...
Shyam Parshad Vs. Kuldip Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2007HP51,2006(3)ShimLC6
Surjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record.2. Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain immovable property was filed in the year 1993 by the respondents against the present appellant. Trial Court after holding the trial, decreed the suit and passed the following decree:In view of my discussion and findings on issues No. 1 to 5 above, the suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and as such, decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.10.1990 in respect of the land in suit on payment of Rs. 55,000/- being balance consideration is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants with costs.3. Appellant went in appeal to the Court of District Judge. Appeal stands dismissed.4. The decree, as passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the first appellate Court, is assailed on the following two grounds:(i) The decree is a nullity, because unless a direction is given in the decree for the execution of the sale deed, decre...
Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Pamwi Ti ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: [2008]82SCL137(HP)
Surjit Singh, J.1. The Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff or Corporation'), has filed this suit against M/s. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (hereinafter called 'defendant No. 1 or company No. 1') and M/s. SWIL name and style changed to M/s. Shalimar Wires Industries Ltd., pursuant to order dated August 28, 2003, of this Court (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant No. 2 or company No. 2'), for recovery of a sum of Rs. 44,72,831, pleading the following cause of action.2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and Sh. R.P. Gautam, its Senior Manager (Project), is authorised to file the suit. One of the functions of the plaintiff-Corporation is to provide financial assistance in the form of term loans, equity and soft loans under the Seed Capital Assistance Scheme of IDBI. Defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff for providing equity assistance to the tune of Rs. 60 lakhs for setting up a project at Baroti...
Rajesh Kumar Sood Vs. Jamshed Nowrojee and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC248
Surjit Singh, J.1. The present suit has been filed by plaintiff Rajesh Kumar Sood for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, allegedly executed by late Shri N.N. Nowrojee. The cause of action, as disclosed in the plaint, may be summed up thus.2. Late Shri N.N. Nowrojee was the exclusive owner of property bearing Khasra Nos. 463 to 472 and 474, measuring 0-16-92 Hectares, situate in Up-Mohal Mcleodganj, Mauza Dharamshala, as per Jamabandi for the year 1992-93 (hereinafter referred to as first property). He was also a co-owner, alongwith defendant No. 1 Jamshed Nowrojee and defendant No. 4 Navaz Nowrojee, of the property comprised in Khasra Nos. 475, 476, 477 and 251, measuring 0-23-71 Hectares, situate in the same Mohal and entered in the same Jamabandi as his exclusive property described earlier and hereinafter referred to as second property. He entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of the first property as also his share in the second prop...
Dole Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC374
Surjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the records.2. The appellant has been convicted of an offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of six months for allegedly possessing 11.500 kgs. of Charas, while travelling by bus No. HP-33-2107 from Mandi to Kullu on 19.2.2002. It has been alleged that around 8.00 p.m. when the bus stopped at a place called Aut, to enable the passengers to take tea and snacks, a police party headed by PW-8 Narinder Kumar, Inspector, boarded the bus for checking the passengers and their luggage. The appellant was allegedly found sitting on seat No. 22 of the bus? By his side, on the same bench of which seat No. 22 was a part, a bag was found lying on seat No. 23, which was allegedly held by the appellant by its straps. On touching the bag, Inspec...
Beli Ram Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC278
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. dated 31.3.2006, vide which the appellant was held guilty as under:Under Section 376: The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to suffer imprisonment of two years.Under Section 506 I.P.C.: The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to suffer imprisonment for three months.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 26.5.2005 an application in writing was submitted by the father of the prosecutrix, namely 'D' that he has got four daughters and his youngest daughter named as 'P' (name not intentionally mentioned) who was born on 3.2.1990 and is of the age of 15 years. It was alleged therein that his ...
Sunka Ram Vs. Prakash Chand and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC298
ORDERRajwant Sandhu, I.A.S.1. This revision petition has arisen on the recommendation of Divisional Commissioner Mandi Division dated 28.12.2005 passed by him in revision petition No. 599/2003.2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner filed an application on 24.03.1994 before the Settlement Tehsildar. Nadaun exercising the powers of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade for partition of land comprised in khata khatauni No. 172/182, khasra Nos. 1101, 1445, 1448, 1457, 1458 and 1461, kita 6, measuring 12-14 kanals, situated in Mahal Basaral, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nadaun processed the case and devised the mode of partition on 01.05.1996 and the final partition was sanctioned on 02.12.1996. Shri Sunka, the present petition filed an appeal before the Collector, Settlement Hamirpur who accepted the same on 08.05.1998 and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade to decide the matter afresh after verifying the claim on ...
Smt. Premi Devi Vs. Director of Directorate General Boarder and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC311
Surinder Singh, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed pensionary benefits of her husband Nanak Chand, a Compressor-Driver No. G/440 in GREF and who was allotted PPO No. C/GREF/1127/1989 after his retirement and was receiving his pension through UCO Bank Kalot, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur.The admitted facts of the case are as follows:(i) The petitioner was the first wife of deceased Nanak Chand who was shown her as his wife in the service record of the deceased. During this wed-lock, she gave birth to two sons, S/Shri Kuldip Singh and Prithi Singh.(ii) Respondent No. 4 Smt. Bimla Devi, the second wife of deceased Nanak Chand was got married on 25-1-1966 despite the objection by Premi Devi, the first wife. During the said marriage, she gave birth to a daughter and a son, namely, Santosh and Rajesh on 25-3-1969 and 3-4-1984, respectively. Their family has been separately shown in the Parivar Registrar of Gram-Sabha Bharoli Kalan, District Bilaspur (Annexure-R4/1)....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›