Himachal Pradesh Court March 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.
Roshan Lal and anr. Vs. Rajinder Kumar and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC235
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment dated 19th May, 2004, I find that the learned Court below by correct appreciation of the material on record has rightly passed an order allowing the respondents' application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by condoning the delay of just a few days in filing the appeal in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 17th September, 2002 passed by the then Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur rejecting the respondents application filed under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the suit dismissed in default on 12th October, 1998.2. The suit filed by the respondents was dismissed on 12th October, 1998. The application for restoration was filed within two weeks, on 28th October, 1998. It is a pity that the justice dispensation system under which we all are working allowed this application to be protracted for as long a pe...
National Insurance Co. Vs. Mansha Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC126,2008ACJ119,2006(1)ShimLC441
Surjit Singh, J.1. The present appeal, by the insurer, is directed against the dismissal of its plea by the Tribunal that the man, who was driving the offending vehicle, did not possess a valid driving licence and, hence, it (the appellant-Insurer) was not liable to pay the compensation, as also the order passed by the Tribunal that the offending vehicle being insured with the appellant, it (the appellant) is liable to pay the compensation.2. Further, grievance of the appellant is that the petition for compensation, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, itself was not maintainable in view of the failure of the claimant (injured) to prove the plea that the truck was being driven in a rash manner by respondent Gurmeet Singh, named as its driver.3. Facts that need to be noticed for the appreciation of the aforesaid two contentions of the appellant are as follows. Respondent Mansha Ram was knocked down by a truck, owned by respondent Charan Singh. Mansha Ram filed a petition, under ...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Joginder Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3213,2006(1)ShimLC450
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal No. 6/ 1997, decided on 4.5.1999 whereby he has set aside the conviction of the respondent-accused under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Trial Court had sentenced the respondent to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.2. The prosecution case in brief was that the Food Inspector apprehended the respondent when he was on his way to sell milk. The Food Inspector purchased 700 ml. of mixed milk from the respondent on payment of Rs. 5/- only. The sample was divided into three equal parts and was sent for analysis after following the due procedure. The sample failed on account of the fact that the milk solids not fat were found to be 7.5% against the minimum prescribed standard of 8.5%. The prosecution was launched after obtaining sanction f...
State of H.P. Vs. Jai Dyal and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC63
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This case depicts gross callousness and negligence and in fact reflects the way in which the police authorities have virtually connived with the accused to thwart the efforts made by poor illiterate local villagers to protect their forest.2. On 18.12.1993 three ladies PW-5 Kamla Devi, PW-6 Jaram Devi and PW-7 Premi Devi who are members of the Mahila Mandal managed to stop a tractor, which was carrying 31 scants of illicitly felled timber. Four accused were travelling in the tractor in question. The driver of the truck was also present on the spot. The police was informed on 18.12.1993 itself and the FIR was lodged on the same date. The FIR is Ext. PW9/A. A perusal of the ruka Ext. PW9/B shows that it is sent by Ran Singh, Incharge, Thana Udaipur to ASI Mohan Lai, Investigating Officer, Police Station Udaipur. This ruka is dated 18.12.1993 and the time is shown as 5.00 p.m. In this ruka it is mentioned that the police had received information that accused Jai Dyal, Ch...
Euro Containers Vs. Morepen Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2006
Reported in: [2007]78SCL168(HP),2007(1)ShimLC153
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 15th March, 2004 rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the winding up application filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant has already instituted a suit for recovery of amount in question and the suit is pending disposal in the Civil Court. In taking this view, the learned Single Judge has been influenced by an earlier view expressed in a Single Judge judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Azeet International Pvt. Ltd. v. Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marketing & Processing Corporation Ltd. reported in 1998 (2) Shim. L.C. 10.2. We have perused the aforesaid judgment in the case of M/s. Azeet International Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and find that indeed in that case the learned Single Judge has taken the view (in para 13 of the judgment) that the Civil Suit for recovery of the amount forming subject-matter of winding up appli...
The Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Yuvraj Gurang and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2862,2006(2)ShimLC78
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the complainant-Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the NCB) against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla dated 27.10.2005 in so far as he has rejected the prayer of the NCB for recalling two witnesses Balbir Singh and Surender Singh.2. The facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the NCB filed a complaint in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla Under Sections 8, 18, 20, 25, 27A and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) against the accused Yuvraj Gurang and Gurusharan Sharma @ Gulshan. The allegations, in brief, are that: on prior information received the NCB carried out a raid in the premises occupied by Yuvraj Gurang in the basement of Hari Bhawan at Shoghi on National High Way No. 22. This building is stated to be owned by the second accused Gurusharan Sharma who is running Sharma Dhabha therein. Durin...
Pola Ram Vs. State of H.P. and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC65
K.C. Sood, J.1. Heard.2. Admit on the following substantial question of law:Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, dated 6th October, 2005 is against the provisions of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act3. Heard Mr. Gautam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.4. It appears eviction proceedings against the appellant were initiated by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nalagarh, District Solan, from the land in dispute, which measures 1-19 bighas. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide his impugned orders dated 31st March, 2002 directed eviction of the appellant from the land in question. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade decided this case as Civil Suit in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', as the plaintiff had raised question of title and adverse possession over ...
Luxmi Devi and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC94
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. The three petitioners herein were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, vide his judgment dated 30th March, 2001 in Criminal Case No. 253-11/99 for committing offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court), Kangra at Dharamshala, vide his judgment dated 30th August, 2005 even though upheld the conviction but modified the sentence by doing away with the sentence of imprisonment altogether and retaining only that part of the sentence whereby the fine was imposed. In addition, the learned Appeal Court also ordered the petitioners to pay Rs.' 5,000/- each by way of compensation to the complainant. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 30th August, 2005 the petitioners have filed the present revision in this Court, which wa...
Agro Industrial Packaging India Ltd. Vs. Haryana Petro Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC41
K.C. Sood, J.1. The plaintiff, is a Government Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act with its registered office at Shimla. The defendant is a company with its office at 54-62 HUDA, Industrial Area, Delhi-Rewari Road, Rewari 123 401 in the State of Haryana.2. The plaintiff company has laid this suit for recovery of Rs. 14,42,366/ - on account of cartons supplied to the defendant company.3. The case of the plaintiff company is :4. The plaintiff company is engaged in production/manufacturing of carton for packing of fruit and other products etc. The defendant company placed an order for the supply of cartons for packing of their product (Polyester yarn). The plaintiff company supplied 3950 cartons to the defendant at the agreed rate of Rs. 62/- per carton, 12530 Cartons @ Rs. 65/- per carton and 10530 cartons @ Rs. 68/- per carton. In all 27010 cartons were supplied to the defendant company by the plaintiff company by different bills.5. The total amount of the car...
Pritam Singh Vs. Rattan Chand
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC17
K.C. Sood, J.1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Una, dated 16th April, 2005.2. It is admitted position that respondent No. 6, Om Parkash, who is necessary party, expired when the proceedings were pending before the learned trial Court. The learned first appellate Court gave his judgment unmindful of the factum of the death of the respondent No. 6, who was defendant No. 6 before the trial Court. No steps were taken before the learned trial Court or the learned District Judge to substitute the legal representatives of defendant No. 6.3. The impugned judgment and decree, evidently was passed in ignorance of the death of defendant No. 6. The appellant in this appeal has filed this application under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the substitution of the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 6.4. It is well settled that where a party dies pending s...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »