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.
State of H.P. Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3061,2006(1)ShimLC470
Surjit Singh J.1. State of Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.5.1999 of the trial Judicial Magistrate, whereby respondents, Om Parkash and Hem Raj, who were sent up for trial for offence, under Sections 451 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted.2. First the prosecution version may be stated. On 25.6.1995 around 2.00 in the night, one Madan Lal went to Police Station, Barsar and reported that on the same night around 11.00 p.m., the respondents, namely Om Parkash and Hem Raj, came to their house armed with Dandas and gave beatings to him, his father Sukru and his wife Reshmi Devi. It was also reported that about an hour prior to the aforesaid incident, the two respondents had been stealthy removing a branch of tree belonging to Madan Lal's father and when they were challenged, they not only hurled abuses at them but also pelted stones. The police got Madan Lal, his father- Sukru and his wife Reshmi Devi medically examined and also ...
Jaswant Singh, Monika and Yashwant Singh Vs. Virender Sharma and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC104
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of all the three appeals as they arise out of the same accident and similar awards.2. Brief facts of the cases necessary for the decision of the appeals are that the claimants Jaswant Singh, Yashwant Singh and Monika who are children of Mast Ram were trevelling along with their father in a Maruti Van No. HIU-4627. The van was being driven by their father Mast Ram. According to the petitioners, due to mechanical defect, the van met with an accident and they all suffered injuries. It would be pertinent to mention here that the petitioners who were minors filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation on account of no fault liability through their father Shri Mast Ram.3. To decide the present appeal it would be necessary to refer the provisions of Section 163-A, which read as follows:163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.(1)Notwithstanding anything contai...
The Managing Director, H.P. Forest Corporation and anr. Vs. Surinder P ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC68
Deepak Gupta, J.1. By this judgment two appeals being FAO (WCA) No. 404 of 2003 and FAO (WCA) No. 425 of 2003 are being disposed of Cross Objections No. 512 of 2003 are also being disposed of by this judgment.2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that claimants Daultu Devi and Shishana Devi, claiming themselves to be the widow and daughter of deceased Chanalu, filed a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act for grant of compensation. The allegations in the claim petition were that the deceased Chanalu was engaged by Surinder Pal as wood cutter for cutting and removing trees from the forest. It is further alleged that Surinder Pal was engaged as a Contractor by the H.P. Forest Corporation and therefore, the Forest Corporation being the Principal employer was also liable to pay compensation.3. The facts as alleged in the claim petition were that on 6.8.1992, during the course of employment, one log of wood fell on the legs of Chanalu Ram. He was immediately shifted to the ho...
National Insurance Co. Vs. Najro and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1753,[2006(110)FLR730],2006(1)ShimLC447
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. In terms of the Court order dated 30th November, 2005, explanatory reply-affidavit by respondent No. 3 is stated to have been filed. This, however, is not on record. It is directed to be placed and tagged on the file. A copy of the reply-affidavit has been shown to me by Mr. M.S. Chandel, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent No. 3.2. The text of the order dated 30th November, 2005 clearly reveals that respondent No. 3 had failed to exercise his jurisdiction as well as he failed to discharge his statutory obligation of deciding Issue No. 3 one way or the other. Instead, as far as Issue No. 3 is concerned, he avoided and skirted to return any positive finding on this Issue by merely observing that the marriage between respondent No. 1 and deceased Man Bahadur 'has come into shadow of doubts'. After making this impertinent observation, he went on to also observe that no compensation amount would be released in favour of respondent No. 1 'until or unless Leg...
Countryside Builders and Developers and ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Bansal a ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ShimLC346
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. Under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 12 of the Delhi High Court Act (as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh) read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is the judgment dated 23rd July, 2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in two miscellaneous applications, being OMPs No. 179 and 195 of 2004 arising out of Civil Suit No. 8 of 2004. By the aforesaid impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed both the aforesaid applications after rejecting the prayer of the appellants that the Court should, in terms of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act, for short) refer the parties to arbitration.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal may be summarized as under.3. Rajesh Kumar Bansal, respondent No. 1 herein filed Civil Suit No. 8 of 2004 in this Court by invoking the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court. The suit was for dissolution of partnership firm i.e. M/ s Countryside Build...
Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ShimLC340
K.C. Sood, J.1. Under challenge in this petition is the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Shimla dated July 14, 2004. By this order, the vehicle, subject-matter of dispute, was seized by the Police in a case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was directed to be released to Ram Pal Chauhan, respondent No. 3, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the application of Sanjay Kumar, the petitioner, for release of the vehicle, was rejected.2. Aggrieved, Sanjay Kumar is in this petition under Section 482/ 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution.3. Brief facts leading to the seizure of the vehicle by the Police and its subsequent release to Ram Pal Chauhan are:4. Prem Singh Thakur, respondent No. 3, was the original owner of Bus 'Swaraz Mazda'. Sanjay Kumar, the petitioner, entered into an agreement with Prem Singh Thakur for the purchase of the vehicle. As per the agreement, ...
Green World Corporation Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors. Overruled
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC441,2007ACJ1472,(2006)205CTR(HP)524,[2006]285ITR118(HP),2006(2)ShimLC22
Surjit Singh, J.1. The writ petition and the income-tax appeal, whose numbers and particulars are given in the title of the judgment, raise common questions of law, arising out of the facts common to both the matters and, therefore, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. First the facts may be noticed. Green World Corporation, a partnership concern of Shri R. S. Gupta and his wife Smt. Sushila Gupta, apparently set up two units at Parwanoo in Himachal Pradesh for manufacturing exercise books, writing pads, etc., some time in the year 1995, soon after the declaration and enforcement of tax holiday for certain period specified in the Union Budget. Later on they claimed to have set up a third unit for manufacturing of computer software. They started filing income-tax returns in the year 1996-97 (assessment year) showing huge profits. In the return for the year 2000-01 they stated that their total sales were to the tune of Rs. 1,51,69,515 out of which a sum of Rs. 74,69,314...
H.R.T.C. and ors. Vs. Puni Chand
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC19
K.C. Sood, J.1. On a Reference made by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the Presiding Judge, H.P. Labour Court, Shimla, by its award dated 4th May, 2002 held that termination of the services of the respondent Puni Chand was illegal unjustified. The Presiding Judge directed his reinstatement from the date of his termination with continuity in seniority and back wages to the extent of 20% from the date of his termination.2. Dis-satisfied, the petitioners, H.R.T.C. and Ors. are in this petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.Few facts :3. The respondent, hereinafter referred to as the 'workman', in his claim petition alleged that he was appointed as Conductor in Baijnath Depot by the employer H.R.T.C. and thereafter was transferred to Pathankot Depot and continued to work at that place till November, 1989 and his services were terminated in the year 1989. Fresh appointment was given to him as Conductor in Rohru Depot in the year 1990, but was again...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›