Himachal Pradesh Court July 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.
Baldev Singh and ors. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ShimLC135
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in the public interest by some residents of villages Batamandi and Ganguwala questioning the legality and propriety of the expansion of the existing fermentation plant of respondent No. 4 at Ganguwala for manufacture of bulk drugs and setting up of a new formulation plant at Batamandi by respondent No. 4 M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited. The challenge is on various grounds. According to the petitioners, the respondents have violated various provisions of law. It is also alleged that the respondent No. 4 has not only violated the law but has started the construction without any legal and valid permission. According to the petitioners in case the plant is set up it shall cause huge amount of pollution leading to environmental degradation. During the course of the proceedings some Gram Panchayats of the area were permitted to join as interveners in the matter. When the petition was initial...
Ajay Singh (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs. Meenakshi Singh and ors. ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: AIR2007HP52,2006(2)ShimLC394
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. By this common judgment, both the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of together.2. In these two appeals the judgment and decree dated 1st September, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 199/1995: (RBT No. 4/2002 ) titled Tikka Brijendra Singh v. Smt. Usha Rani and Ors. is under challenge. Whereas RFA No. 271 of 2003 was filed by defendant No. 1 Ajay Singh (since deceased), RFA No. 310 of 2003 has been filed by the plaintiff Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Ajay Singh in RFA No. 271 of 2003 (who was defendant No. 6 in the Suit) had died during the pendency of the appeal. His legal representatives were brought on record and substituted as appellants vide order passed by this Court on 19th March, 2004 in CMPM No. 179 of 2004.3. Before I proceed to deal with the issues involved for adjudication in the two appeals, I indicate hereinbelow brief facts leading to the filing of the suit, from out of which these tw...
Shakuntla Devi and ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Monkotia and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC593,2007ACJ2868
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the present appeal for enhancement as well as an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC filed by the claimants for leading additional evidence to place on record and prove the income tax returns filed by the deceased.2. The brief facts necessary for decision of the case are that deceased Jagdish Singh died in a motor vehicle accident involving Maruti Van No. HP-01-1396, which took place on 29.5.2000. The deceased was aged about 45 years. Claimants who are his widow and minor children filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver. It was further alleged that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company. According to the claimants, the deceased was a Government Contractor having income of more than Rs. 40,000 per month and they prayed that compensation of Rs. 28 lacs may be awarded. The parents of the deceased w...
Bihari Lal Vs. Hem Raj and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ShimLC126
Deepak Gupta, J.1. The present appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is directed against the order passed by the learned District judge, Hamirpur in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 1998, decided on 8.11.2005 whereby he has dismissed the objections filed by appellant to the award dated 23.5.1994 passed by the Arbitrator Shri Anand Sarup, Advocate and has made the award the rule of the Court. I would be pertinent to mention that the case is governed by the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. The facts necessary for disposal of the case are that appellant, Bihari Lal and respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 Hem Raj, Surinder Nath and Suiekh Chand are the sons and respondent No. 3 Parsino Devi is the widow of late Bakshi Ram, son of Nikka Ram. Bakshi Ram expired on 21.8.1978. He left behind huge moveable and immoveable properties. His property situate at Shiv Nagar, Ward No. 4, Hamirpur was mutated in the name of all the parties in equal shares in accordance with the will of Bakshi R...
New India Assurance Company Vs. Mehta Balbir Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC251,2007ACJ788,2006(3)ShimLC78
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. Reference is invited to Section 103-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in support of the argument that no intimation was given by the original owner of the vehicle in question, namely, respondent No. 3 herein that the vehicle in question had been sold and its ownership transferred in favour of respondent No. 2. The accident in question had occurred on 4th May, 1989. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force with effect from 1st July, 1989. It, therefore, clearly means that the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 with respect to the aforesaid accident was regulated by the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at least in so far it related to the contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured. Section 103-A of the 1939 Act, therefore, did have application to the aforesaid contract of insurance relating to the aforesaid claim petition.2. As many as eight Issues were framed in the claim petition, but only Issue No. 5 has been referred today before me f...
Kuldeep Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC268
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. A very clear and categorical as well as an unequivocal and unambiguous provision of law has unnecessarily been made the subject matter of the controversy in this petition challenging an innocuous order passed by the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal. On 9th June, 2006 the Tribunal while calling for replies from the respondents had directed that if the reply was not filed, it would consider the issue of grant of interim direction. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition.2. We see no reason as to why this Court should interfere in the aforesaid order especially when the State Government while invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Rule 29 of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 has issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the proposed penalty of removal from service should not be imposed against him. We have seen Rule 29 (supra) and very firmly feel that the State Government in t...
Ashoka Books (P) Ltd. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC328
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. With respect to a dispute relating to the recovery of money, the State Bank of India appears to have taken recourse to the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (2002 Act). Apparently and undisputably a notice under Section 13(2) of 2002 Act was served upon the petitioner and apparently because of the alleged non-payment of the amounts clue from the petitioner to the Bank, (the Bank claims that an amount of Rs. 1,36,85,478.89 along with interest and other charges is due to it from the petitioner) the Bank issued a possession notice on 18th March, 2006 taking over the possession of the property described in the said notice in terms of Section. 13(4) of 2002 Act.2. Against the aforesaid act of the Bank in taking over the possession of the property in exercise of the Bank's power under Section 13(4) of 2002 Act, the petitioner tried to set in motion the machinery under Criminal Law because ...
Vidya Devi Vs. Smt. Chander Kanta
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC330
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. Order dated 4th May, 2006 was passed by respondent No. 2 in an appeal purportedly filed before him under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1953. In the impugned order while admitting/ accepting the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner, respondent No. 2-Collector, Sub Division, Kalpa at Reckongpeo had restrained the petitioner from raising any type of construction/work in the land forming the subject matter of the aforesaid appeal.2. Reply has been filed by respondent No. 2 in which it is stated that the aforesaid order stands modified to the extent that the construction has been allowed to be continued as per the plan approved by the SADA. Even though the impugned order dated 4th May, 2006 has been modified by respondent No. 2, we do wish to observe that the impugned order dated 4th May, 2006 in so far as it restrained the petitioner from raising any construction over the land in question was totally and patently without any jurisdiction. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›