Himachal Pradesh Court January 2007 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.
Krishma Educational Centre Vs. H.P. Board of School Education and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC377
Surinder Singh, J.1. The Petitioner is an Educational Institution and a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 having its head office at Rati Road Dadour (Ner Chowk), District Mandi (H.P.). It is duly recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education, (NCTE), Northern Regional Committee, Jaipur. The petitioner has set up J.B.T. (Elementary Teacher Education) Training Centre at Dadour (Ner Chowk) in Mandi. It was denied the sponsorship of candidates, for admission to J.B.T. by the respondent Board, for want of permanent affiliation. Feeling aggrieved by the said act of the respondent Board, the petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, inter-alia prayed that the respondents be directed to sponsor the candidates for admission to J.B.T. (Elementary Teacher Education) Training in its Institute from Academic Session 2006-2008 onwards and also that the respondents No. 1 and 2 be directed to grant permanent affiliation to the Pet...
Sunita Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC214
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of Shri Subhash Chand, who was enrolled as a Sepoy/Washerman in the Indian Army. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, who was assigned Army No. 14915684 and was posted in the Infantry Unit which was actively engaged in operational duties in Jammu and Kashmir, was granted leave from 7.1.1995 to 7.3.1995. After availing leave, the husband of the petitioner is alleged to have returned to his Unit. He was travelling by bus to rejoin his Unit and was seen off by his father from the bus stop at Nadaun.2. A communication dated 29.3.1995 (Annexure P-l) was received from the Army Authorities, which stated that the husband of the petitioner had overstayed his leave w.e.f. 8th March, 1995. This communication is addressed to the District Magistrate, District Hamirpur and states that:please take early step to apprehend the above named absentee and inform to this unit immediately quoting locality in which the absentee is being detained. On ...
Arun Sood Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC399
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. In view of the short Order that we propose to pass, we do not think it desirable to go into the merits of the case because we do not want either to prejudge the issue or make any observation which may tend to influence the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal for deciding either O.A. No. 1521 of 2006 or the Miscellaneous Applications connected with this O.A.2. Relating to and arising out of Order No. TPT-B(1) 15/2000 dated 18th March, 2006 whereby the petitioner had been reverted from the post of RTO with immediate effect and had stood accordingly posted as Superintendent Grade II in the office of Director (Transport), Shimla (It is the admitted case of the parties that later on vide Order No. TPT-B(3)1/99 dated 7th April, 2006 the petitioner had been promoted as Superintendent Grade I) the learned Tribunal passed an ad interim order on 9th May, 2006 in O.A. No. 1521 of 2006, which reads thus:Notice pending admission.Learned Additional Advocate General appears and wa...
Bishan Singh Vs. Smt. Swantantar Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2007
Reported in: AIR2007HP50,2007(1)ShimLC404
ORDERV.K. Ahuja, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Una dated 24-12-1994, vide which the decree of the trial Court was set aside and plaint was ordered to be returned.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 1618/769, measuring 2 kanal 4 marlas after the death of Dalip Singh. It was alleged that the plaintiff has become owner in possession by way of a Will dated 21-4-1987 executed by one Dalip Singh who was owner in possession of the land and it was alleged that the entries showing Dalip Singh as ten-ant-at-will to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit land in the revenue record are null and void and have no effect on the rights of Dalip Singh or the plaintiff. It was further alleged that Dalip Singh has been coming in poss...
Sunita Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC410
Surinder Singh, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, precisely for seeking writ direction against the respondents restraining them to recover a sum of Rs. 7,26,618/- from her vide letter dated 25-2-2003 (Annexure-P7) sent by the respondent No. 4 followed by letter dated 5-9-2003 (Annexure-P5) issued by the respondent No. 7 to the petitioner and also for quashing the recovery proceedings against her.2. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was a Postal Assistant in the Head Office, Solan from where she was transferred to Parwanoo in District Solan, H.P. Both these offices are under the Superintendent of Post offices, Solan Division (Respondent No. 4). While working in Sub Post Office, Parwanoo, the respondent No. 4 placed here under suspension and issued Memos Annexures P1 and P2, proposing to initiate inquiry against her, under Rule 14 of the CCS. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 for allegedly def...
H.P.S.i.D.C. Vs. Pawan Kumar
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC232
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. 62 of 1997, on 16.3.2001, whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the workmen and they have been ordered to be reinstated with 20% back-wages. By another writ petition, being CWP 847 of 2001, the workman challenged the award where the full benefit of back-wages was denied to him.2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was made by the respondents that they had been employed as daily wage beldars from 1.8.1994 and 1.10.1993 in which capacity they continued to work till 30.4.1995. The gravaman of the respondents grievance was that their services had been dispensed with without following the procedure prescribed by Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Reference under Section 10 of the Act was made to the learned Industrial Tribunal, and the following issue was framed on 27.8.1997...
Pawan Kumar Vs. H.P. State Industrial Development Corporation and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: (2007)IIILLJ281HP
ORDERDev Darshan Sud, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, dated March 16,2001, passed in Reference No. 62 of 1997, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be reinstated in service with full back seniority. While allowing the reference filed on behalf of the petitioner, it was ordered that he shall be entitled to 20% of the wages. There is no evidence on the record by the workman to show that he was unemployed.2. It is now well settled that unless the employee shows that he was not gainfully employed, for which purpose the burden is on him, the workman is not entitled to any back wages.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan and Anr. v. S.C. Sharma : (2005)IILLJ153SC , has held that the entitlement to back wages stands determined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of decisions. In para-11 of the judgment in Kendriya Vidyalaya case (supra), their Lordships have held as under:15. Applying the above...
Rakesh Jolly Vs. Bhim Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: AIR2007HP38,2007(1)ShimLC402
ORDERV.K. Gupta, C.J.1. Vide the impugned order dated 1st November. 2006 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu, the defence of the petitioner -defendant No. 3 has been struck off on the ground that he failed to file written statement within the period of 90 days from the date of service of summons upon him.2. It is the admitted case of the petitioner-defendant No. 3 before me that appearance on his behalf was put in before the learned trial Court for the first time on 27th April, 2005 and the written statement was filed by him only on 22nd August, 2006. The only ground urged by the petitioner-defendant No. 3 before the learned trial Court in support of his contention about not filing the written statement before 22nd August, 2006 was that defendant No. 2 had not been served till then and that he (defendant No. 2) having been served on 22nd August, 2006, defendant No. 3 filed his written statement on this date. This contention did not find favour with the ...
Kauran Devi Vs. Amar Nath and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2007
Reported in: AIR2007HP39
ORDERSurjit Singh, J.1. This regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 24-3-1995:Whether the findings of the learned lower appellate Court that the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 14-2-1978 in redemption of mortgage proceedings against the minor (appellant) who was not represented before the Collector, is a valid order is legal and in accordance with law ?2. Facts, relevant for the disposal of the appeal, may be noticed. Appellant Kauran Devi and pro forma respondents No. 8 to 13, all of them hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 14-2-1978, passed by the Assistant Collector I-Grade, S.D.O. (Civil), under the provisions of Redemption of Mortgages (Himachal Pradesh) Act, 1971, thereby ordering redemption of the mortgage of certain immovable property in favour of respondents No. 1 to 7, who were impleaded as defendants, was illegal, void and liable to be set aside, on account of tw...
Karam Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-01-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1201
Surjit Singh, J.1. Three persons, including the present appellant, were sent up for trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The other two were the father (named Nathu Ram) and the wife (named Kanta Devi) of the present appellant. On commitment of the case to it, the Sessions Court discharged Kanta Devi, the wife of the appellant. The appellant was charged with an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and his father Nathu Ram with an offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 302. I. P.C. On conclusion of the trial, the Court found only the present appellant guilty of the offence charged with, i.e. the offence of murder and accordingly convicted him. He was heard on the question of quantum of sentence and ultimately sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.2. Facts, as per record, may be summed up thus. Nathu R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »