Himachal Pradesh Court June 2006 Judgments

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Smt. Raminder Wasu Kalsi

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC339

V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the learned District Judge, Solan under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondent Smt. Raminder Wasu Kalsi. The reference was sent to this Court through the Court's Registrar General on 20th July, 2005 and arose out of the proceedings in Civil Appeal No. 80/13 of 2001 titled Smt. Raminder Wasu Kalsi v. Sadhu Ram Tula Ram Goenka Marwari and Anr., pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Solan. This appeal arose out of the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kasauli. The respondent herein was the appellant in the aforesaid Civil First Appeal who having suffered a decree passed against her by the trial Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kasuali had challenged the aforesaid decree in the aforesaid appeal. While this appeal was pending, the respondent through her Counsel filed an application purportedly under Order 17 Rule 1 read with Section 151, C.P.C. for gran...

Sher Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC263

V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. In this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner is not seeking to challenge any order passed by the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal but is seeking directions qua the early disposal of the Original Application filed by him which, owing to the utter neglect on the part of the respondent is not making any headway despite its pendency for over two years. The petitioner's dismay is that despite its pendency for over two years, in the said Original Application the respondent has not been filing the reply even though opportunities have been given to it by the learned Tribunal on several occasions since April, 2004.2. A perusal of the present Miscellaneous Petition and the Annexures filed therewith shows that the first order was passed in this Original Application on 28th April, 2004 by the Division Bench of the learned Tribunal directing the respondent-State to...

Sunil Kuthiala Vs. Ajwesh Sood and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC331

Deepak Gupta, J.1. The present petitioner alongwith proforma respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit before the trial Court against respondents No. 1. to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from throwing debris, stones, boulders, building material etc. on any part and portion of the suil land. Evidence was led by the parties and the case was listed for arguments. At this stage the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act. By way of this application the plaint was sought to be amended and the petitioner in addition to the reliefs already claimed also sought the relief of damages to the extent of Rs. 63,325/-. Consequent amendments were sought to be made in the main plaint as well as in the relief clause.2. This application was opposed by the defendants. The learned trial Court vide order dated 7th ...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sudesh Kumari and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: III(2006)ACC80,II(2007)ACC386,2007ACJ661,2006(3)ShimLC105

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of two appeals being F.A.O. Nos. 306 of 2001 and 299 of 2003, as they arise out of the same award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmour District at Nahan (H.P.) in M.A.C. Petition No. 43-MAC/2 of 2000/1998, decided on 18.6.2001.2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Parminder Kumar is alleged to have died as a result of accident of tractor No. HR 02-A 7259. According to claimants, Parminder Kumar was travelling on the tractor along with his goods and Rs. 50 as fare was agreed to be paid to the driver of the tractor. The claim petition was filed by the parents of Parminder Kumar and was instituted in the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmour at Nahan on 6.11.1998. Hema Devi, widow of the deceased was shown as pro forma respondent, but vide order dated 29.7.1999 on an application for transposition having been moved by Hema Devi, she was allowed to be arrayed as petitioner No. 3.3. The claim petiti...

Kaljang Dorje Etc. Vs. Dorje Phunchok and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This order shall dispose of 15 appeals as they arise out of the same accident and can be disposed of by a single order.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17th July, 2003 accident of vehicle No. HP-02A-3047 took place near Chhota Dhara in District Lauhal and Spiti. The said vehicle rolled into the Chandra River and all the occupants of the vehicle died. Fifteen claim petitions were filed by the persons claiming to be the heirs of the victims, who had died in the accident in question. These petitions have been dismissed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr by holding that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question. Aggrieved against the said awards, the present appeals have been filed.3. I have heard Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Counsel for the appellant in all the appeals, Mr. B.C. Negi, learned Counsel for resp...

Kaljang Dorje and ors. Vs. Dorje Phunchok and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This order shall dispose of 15 appeals as they arise out of the same accident and can be disposed of by a single order.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.7.2003 accident of vehicle No. HP-02A-3047 took place near Chhota Dhara in District Lauhal and Spiti. The said vehicle rolled into the Chandra River and all the occupants of the vehicle died. Fifteen claim petitions were filed by the persons claiming to be the heirs of the victims, who had died in the accident in question. These petitions have been dismissed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr by holding that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question. Aggrieved against the said awards, the present appeals have been filed.3. I have heard Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Counsel for the appellant in all the appeals, Mr. B.C. Negi, learned Counsel for respondent ...

Pradeep Kumar Abrol Vs. Rakesh Seth

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC285

Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by the complainant is directed against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar in case No. 6-I/2003/2-III/2003 dated 24.9.2005, whereby he has discharged the accused.2. The facts in brief are that the complainant Ashwani Kumar Abrol had filed a complaint through his General Attorney Pardeep Kumar against respondent Rakesh Seth under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC. In the trial Court on behalf of the complainant, it was submitted that the complaint be treated as being under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only.3. The complaint relates to dishonouring of cheque No. SML/CD No. 0350714 dated 25.4.2002 alleged to have been issued by Rakesh Seth in favour of the complainant. According to the averments made in the complaint the cheque was deposited by him in his bank for encashment and thereafter the same was dishonoured on 5.10.2002 with the remarks 'insufficient funds'. Thereaf...

Het Ram Vs. Madan Gopal @ Madan Lal

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC354

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of two appeals being RFA No. 136 of 1996, and RFA No. 153 of 1996 as they arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in Civil Suit No. 120-S/l of 1985/87 decided on 8.8.1996.2. Madan Gopal, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,05000/- against Het Ram and Hem Raj, hereinafter referred to as the defendants, on the ground that the defendants by falsely implicating him in a criminal case had caused great harm and loss to him. Rs. 5,000/- was claimed as cost of defending the prosecution; Rs. 50,000 was claimed on account of loss of business and loss of reputation and Rs. 1,50,000/- for physical and mental agony and torture i.e. Rs. 2,05,000 in all.3. Defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1. Admittedly on 19.3.1985 a fire took place in the residential house of the defendants in village Theog. At about 1.45 p.m. on 19.3.1985, defendant No. 1 lodged a First I...

Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Vs. Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC369

Deepak Gupta, J.1. The plaintiff Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited is a joint venture of the Government of India and Government of Himachal Pradesh formerly known as Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff Corporation). The plaintiff Corporation was established for construction and setting up of a 1500 Mega Watt (MW) Hydro Electric Power Project on river Satluj known as Nathpa Jhakri Project. The plaintiff in turn entered into a contracts with various other parties including the defendant for carrying out some portions of the work relating to the construction and erection of the Project.2. The present dispute relates to Contract No. 3 of 1993 entered into between the parties on 24.6.1993 whereby the plaintiff had entrusted the construction of civil work for a Head Race Tunnel from Station 16042 m to 27295 m, including surge shaft to the defendant. Differences arose between the parties with regard to the method to be employed for the excavation work keepi...

Suraj Vs. Dalip Singh Alias Kuldeep Singh and Dalip Singh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC20

Surjit Singh, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of these two appeals, because similar questions of law and facts are involved and the contesting parties are also the same in both the cases.2. Both the appeals have been filed by Suraj Ram, who was defendant in Civil Suit No. 200 of 82/RBT 192 of 88, that had been filed by late Smt. Parvati, who on her death was substituted by Dalip Singh, respondent and plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 70 of 1986, which he himself filed against respondent Dalip Singh. The suit filed by late Smt. Parvati was tried and decided by one Civil Court at Palampur, while the suit filed by appellant Suraj Ram was tried and decided by another Civil Court, stationed at the same place. It appears that nobody bothered to bring it to the notice of the two Courts that two Civil Suits between the parties were there and they needed to be consolidated or atleast tried simultaneously.3. In the suit, which was filed by late Smt. Parvati and which was earlier in point of time, dec...