Himachal Pradesh Court May 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.
Smt. Shanta Devi and ors. Vs. Bhupinder Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC150
Surjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the award of the Tribunal whereby 50% of the amount of compensation worked out on account of dependency has been reduced with the finding that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence and also no interest has been awarded from the date of the petition to the date of the passing of the award.2. Relevant facts are as follows. Deceased Bhup Singh was employed as a Guard. His gross monthly salary was to the tune of Rs. 2,466/-. On 28th May, 1992, around 9.30 p.m., when he was going along National Highway in NH-21 on his scooter, in Bhojpur Bazaar, Sundernagar, one Maruti Car and one TATA SUMO were parked in no parking zone. The scooter rammed into the Maruti Car. Bhup Singh somehow managed to stabilize the scooter and soon thereafter it rammed into the TATA SUMO. As a result of that he sustained serious injuries. He was shifted to PGI Chandigarh where he breathed his-last on 30t...
Sanjeev Gautam Vs. Surinder Kumar and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC132,2007ACJ813,2006(2)ShimLC279
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan in MAC Petition No. 24-S/2 of 2001, decided on 25.3.2001.2. A short but interesting question arises for decision in this appeal. The question which arises is whether a person who is in the process of getting on to the vehicle should be termed as a passenger or a third party? The law is well settled that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the passengers being carried in a goods carriage. However, it is liable as far as third parly is concerned.3. The facts necessary for decision of the case are that claimant Surinder Kumar filed a petition for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this petition, it was alleged that on 20.2.2000, when he was in the process of boarding a truck No. HP-11-2000, the driver of the truck suddenly drove the truck without caring to see whether the peti...
Devi Roop Vs. Smt. Devku and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2006HP114,2006(2)ShimLC158
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This revision petition clearly demonstrates how a technical approach to judicial matters results in total failure of justice for all concerned.2. One Gokal filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he had become owner of 1/2 share of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 19/37, Khasra Nos. 12 and 19 measuring 23-13 bighas in Chak Rampur, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. by efflux of time as statutory period to redeem mortgage had expired and the right to redeem the mortgage stood extinguished. In the alternative it was prayed that he had become owner by way of adverse possession. Consequent relief of permanent injunction was prayed against defendants No. 1 and 2 restraining them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. This suit was filed before the trial Court, i.e. Sub-Judge 1st Class, Arki on 17.8.1981. In this suit defendant No. 2 was described as follows:Sh. Inder Datt, son of Shib Ram, resident of village Pakhred, Pargan...
Duni Chand Dhiman Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC173
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. Reply has been filed.2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal today itself without formally admitting it.3. Heard. The petitioner has been placed under suspension under Section 145 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short: the Act). The suspension order as well as the notice preceding suspension order clearly stated that the petitioner is being placed under suspension in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 145 of the Act. Even during the course of hearing of the case today, Mr. Chandel, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents specifically stated before us that the suspension order was passed in terms of sub Section (2) of Section 145 of the Act.4. Sub- Section (2) (supra), inter-alia, provides that the Prescribed Authority may suspend an office bearer of a Panchayat where the inspection or an audit report discloses the misappropriation, misutilization or embezzlement of Panchaya...
Gokul Chand and anr. Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC174
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This petition for grant of bail has been filed in respect of FIR No. 37 of 2006 registered with Police Station, Jawalamukhi under Sections 304/34 IPC against the present petitioners.2. The prosecution case rests merely on the statement of Rameshwar Singh. From the material on record, it is apparent that on the evening of 5th March, 2006 deceased Kishori Lal consumed liquor with one Rameshwar Singh and Gokul Chand, one of the petitioners. Rameshwar Singh runs a small shop and he and Kishori Lai had pooled money to buy liquor. It is also in evidence that prior to this Kishori Lai had already been drinking. Thereafter, Gokul Chand came and all three of them consumed liquor and went to the Dhaba of Gokul Chand. In the meantime, Manohar Lal, salesman of the liquor vend also came there and they consumed liquor. Thereafter Rameshwar Singh took his meals and went away from the Dhaba. Next morning i.e. on 6.3.2006 the body of deceased Kishori Lai was found outside. On 13.3.20...
Merind Limited Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3548,2006(2)ShimLC176
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. On a very short and limited question of law, this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is being allowed in favour of the petitioner-accused with respect to and arising out of the criminal proceedings launched against him (alongwith some other accused persons) under Section 18 (a) (i) of 'the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Section 34 of the said Act.2. With respect to a drug 'Ciprofloxacin Opthalmic Solution USP'', a sample was taken by the complainant and the sample after testing in the laboratory was found not conforming to standard quality for the reasons given in the report of the Laboratory. In so far as the petitioner-accused is concerned, its description as is found in the cause-title of the complaint is as under:The Promoter/General Manager (Sales),of M/s. Merind Limited,New India Centre,17, Cooperage Road,MUMBAI 400 001.3. Undoubtedly the expression 'Promoter' is as vague as could be, but the expression 'General Manager (Sales)' ...
Ssjv Projects Private Limited Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board and anr ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC166
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. In this petition filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (1996 Act : for short), the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an Arbitrator.2. The petitioner was awarded a contract for the construction of 8.50m dia Head Race Tunnel (RD 0 - 3500 m) of Larji Hydroelectric Project at a contract price of Rs. 51,35,56,685.00. This contract appears to have been awarded on 3rd May, 1999 and the stipulated period of completion of the contract work was 35 months from the date of award of the contract. Apparently the period of completion later on was extended from time to time.3. Between the parties, there exists an arbitration agreement, which is reproduced herein below:Clause 25 : Settlement of Dispute by Arbitrations.Except where otherwise provided in the contract, all questions and dispute relating to the meaning and interpretation of the terms of contract, specifications, designs, drawings and before instructions here-in- below mentioned, a...
Sushima Kishandev Kaushal Vs. the Council for Tibetan Education
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006HP122,2006(2)ShimLC184
Surjit Singh, J.1. Plaintiff Smt. Sushima Kishandev Kaushal has filed the present suit for declaration and possession of certain property, described in the following sentence, pleading the following cause of action. The plaintiff purchased land measuring 14 Kanals, 11 Marias, being Khasra Nos. 1208/ 1153, 1089, 1061, 1152/1990, alongwith the super structures standing thereon and land measuring 5337.25, bearing Khasra Nos. 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606 and 607, situated in Dharamshala, District Kangra in the year 1962. The sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff out of her own funds and some portion of the money was contributed by her father-in-law late Shri Paras Ram Kaushal. Mutations were also entered and attested in favour of the plaintiff. Late Smt. Raj Kumari Bhardwaj, who was the mother of the plaintiff, started looking after the two properties, which shall hereinafter be referred to as suit property. She died on 2.7.1991...
Smt. Supla Devi and anr. Vs. Ramesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC152,2008ACJ288,2006(2)ShimLC153
Deepak Gupta, J.1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident-Claims Tribunal (II) (Fast Tract Court), Hamirpur in MAC Petition No. 59 of 2003/20 of 2005 decided on 24.9.2005 whereby he has rejected the claim petition filed by the present appellants.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Prithi Singh was sitting in a rain shelter in village Kuthera on 22.7.2003. At about 12.45 p.m. truck No. HP-11-0717 owned by Ramesh Kumar, driven by Sanjiv Kumar and insured with the National Insurance Company dashed into the rain shelter which collapsed restilting in the death of Prithi Singh and one another person. Some injuries were also caused to other persons sitting in the rain shelter.3. Two claim petitions were filed with regard to the death of Prithi Singh. One claim petition was filed by the present appellants i.e. Supla Devi and Meena Devi who are admittedly the daughters of the deceased Prithi Sing...
Rajinder Singh Vs. Sushil Kumar and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: AIR2007HP1,2006(2)ShimLC326
Surjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record. Appellant Rajinder Singh is aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court whereby a suit for specific performance, instituted by respondents Sushil Kumar and Jagdish Ram Sharma initially against Nand Lal and, in which the present appellant was later on impleaded as defendant No. 2, has been decreed.2. The facts, in brief, may be noticed. Respondent Nand Lal, hereinafter referred to as 'defendant No. 1' was owner of certain property. He entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to sell the said property on 11th October, 1988. The plaintiffs were already in possession of the property as tenants. They continued to be in possession even after the execution of the agreement. In the year 1989, the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance arraying proforma respondent Nand Lal as the defendant. Nand Lal took the plea that he had already sold the suit property to the present appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »