Himachal Pradesh Court October 2007 Judgments

Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Bimla Devi and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(1)ShimLC172

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Amb (for short the Commissioner), District Una, H.P. in case No. 1/WCC/2002, decided on 24.12.2002 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- in favour of the respondents and held the Insurance Company liable to pay the same along with interest @ 12% per annum appeal has been admitted on the following questions of law:1. Whether the impugned order awarding the amount of compensation to the claimant against the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act in a time barred claim petition is sustainable in the eyes of law?2. Whether impugned order awarding compensation to the claimant under Workmen's Compensation Act when the cause of death is due to drowning in the river which in no manner is connected with his employment, is justified?3. Whether the impugned non-speaking order passed by learned Commissioner without giving any reasons and basis, ...

Kamla and ors. Vs. Baldev Singh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(1)ShimLC215

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is a Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Additional District Judge(2), Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 18.3.1994, vide which the appeal filed by the respondents as against the appellant as against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Dehra, dated 31.3.1992, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for possession and on appeal, decree for possession was passed by the learned first appellate Court.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 and 2 as plaintiffs filed a suit for possession as against the original appellant, hereinafter referred to as the defendants. The allegations made by the plaintiffs were that suit land comprised in Khasra No. 309 measuring 0-05-68 Hectares (old Khasra No. 240 min) was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs before settlement. During settlement, the defendant in collusion with the settlement staff got himself recorded in...

Surat Singh Vs. F.C. (Appeals) and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(I)ShimLC3

Sanjay Karol, J.1. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.6.2005 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in the present writ petition.2.1 Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are as under:Petitioner and respondent No. 2 are close relatives. Respondent No. 2 is the aunt (Bua) of the petitioner and is issueless. In terms of agreement dated 1.4.1991, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Aunt') created a tenancy of her agricultural land comprising khasra No. 2236/2171 measuring 0-01-34 hectare and khasra No. 2237/2171 measuring 0-02-81 hectare (total land 0-04-15 hectare = 415 Sq.mtrs.) in Muhal Chhapanu, illaqua Kamlah, Sarkaghat, District Mandi (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land') in favour of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the nephew). Petitioner was put in possession of the land and the rent (galla batai) was fixed as 1/4th share of the produce. According to the nephew, he is in cultivating possession of the sam...

Chand Parkash Sharma Vs. Kaushlya Devi

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: I(2008)DMC176,2008(1)ShimLC198

Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is the husband's appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Solan, dismissing the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for divorce on the ground that the petitioner has been treated with cruelty and as such the marriage be annulled by a decree of divorce. The petition was resisted by the respondent on a number of grounds and she had expressed her willingness before the learned trial Court to live with the husband. She was asked to be present in this Court, and, she again expressed her desire to live with her husband. No reconciliation could be effected despite the best efforts made by me.2. This is a rather unfortunate case where petition for divorce has been filed before the learned District Judge by the parties after a period of more than 21 years of marriage. The parties to this petition have one son who is now employed and happily settled in life The allegations...

Continental Foundation Joint Venture Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. In this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed and challenged the legality and correctness of notice No. Udyog-Bhu (khani-4) Laghu-132/02-2398 dated 16th June, 2006 issued by the Director of Industries, Government of Himachal Pradesh, respondent No. 2 herein whereby a decision has been communicated by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner that the extracted minor minerals, namely, aggregate and sand forming the subject matter of this Petition have become the property of the Government in terms of Himachal Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971 (for short : 1971 Rules) and therefore, the Government is at liberty to sell or dispose of the said minor minerals in such manner as it deems fit without the liability to pay any compensation in lieu thereof to the petitioner. The basis on which such a decision has been arrived at in the aforesaid impugned notice is that under the provisions of the aforesaid 1971...

Jeet Bahadur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surinder Singh, J.1. The challenge has been made by the appellant against his conviction and sentence, passed under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short the Act, for allegedly having 2.00 K.Gs of Charas in his possession.2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 19th January, 2004, Inspector Madan Lal (PW7) was heading a police party and was on a patrolling duty and detection of crime in Manikaran area. The police party spotted the appellant coming from Manikaran side and was going towards Siundh, with a rucksack on his back. On seeing the police party, he had tried to escape, but was overpowered. On inquiry, he disclosed his identity. The said place was isolated one. No human habitation was nearby. Inspector Madan Lal suspected contraband in the possession of the appellant, therefore, he associated his own official witnesses, HC Ranjeet Singh (PW5) and Whether reporters of local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes Constable San...

State of H.P. Vs. Pinku and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(I)ShimLC17

Surjit Singh, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the trial Magistrate whereby the respondents, who were sent up for trial for offences punishable under Sections 325, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, have been acquitted.2. First, the prosecution version, as per record, may be noticed. On 7.5.1994, around 9.30 p.m., when PW-4 Dhani Ram was going towards his village after closing his shop situated at Bus Stand Baijnath, truck No. HPK-7497, driven by respondent Pinku, overtook him. Pinku was a friend of said Dhani Ram. So, he stopped the truck and offered him a lift. Dhani Ram boarded the cabin of the truck. Truck was taken to a place called Ustehar, situated at a distance of 2 kms. from Bus Stand Baijnath. PW-1 Neeru, who is a brother of PW-4 Dhani Ram, noticed that Dhani Ram had been pulled inside the cabin of the truck and gathered the impression that the truck driver and other occupants thereof were likely to manhandle him. At that time he was travel...

Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No. 2 & 3 i.e. the State of Punjab and Secretary Irrigation (Canal) to the Government of Punjab are causing uncontrolled damage to the property of the petitioner and other villagers in villages Mohtli and Majra in Tehsil Indora by releasing huge quantity of water suddenly and without warning. This results in flooding and washing away the land of the petitioner and similarly situated persons. The petitioner has prayed for the following amongst other reliefs:(i) That the respondents No. 2 & 3 may very kindly be directed to divert the water of Madhavpur Beas Link Canal (M.B. Link Canal) entering in Himachal to the territory of Punjab so as to restrain the flow of the said water through Mohtli and Majra villages in Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P.(ii) That the respondents No. 2 & 3 may also be directed to compensate the petitioner and other affected persons with the flow of the water of M.B.Link Canal through these ...

H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority Vs. Shri Mast Ram

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is the plaintiff's second appeal against the concurrent findings of the two courts below. The plaintiff, instituted a suit against the respondent-defendant for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining him from raising any construction or making encroachment on land comprised in Khasra Nos.189/1/2 and 189/2, situated in Mauza Pateog, Tehsil and District Shimla, and for mandatory injunction directing him to move/demolish any construction or encroachment made on the suit land. The trial Court, framed eight issues and on the crucial issue relating to the legal entitlement of the plaintiff for grant of relief, held that the plaintiff had not established his case as pleaded and therefore, suit was dismissed.2. It is undisputed that the plaintiff and the defendant own lands which are adjacent to each other. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the defendant had purportedly narrowed the approach of a path leading to Block Nos. 58, 60, 61 and 62 of apartments/...

Kaushalya Devi and anr. Vs. Bhag Chand

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(I)ShimLC9

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, dated 1.12.2000 in Criminal Revision No. 5 of 1999 whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by the husband, set aside the order granting maintenance in favour of the petitioners passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and has rejected the petition filed by the petitioners.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 had initially filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. She had filed this petition before the Gram Panchayat, Bradha, Tehsil and District Kullu which is entitled to hear such petition under the provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act. This petition was filed by Smt. Kaushalya Devi. She claimed that respondent Bhag Chand was on visiting terms with her and both had entered into a love marriage. It was further alleg...