Himachal Pradesh Court October 2007 Judgments

Ayush Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. Clause 25 of the agreement between the parties is the arbitration agreement which stipulates and lays down that the disputes between the parties shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer, HP PWD. Since apparently some disputes arose between the parties on 1st August, 2005, the petitioner addressed a communication to the Chief Engineer (South), HP PWD, Shimla in which details of the disputes were mentioned, claims were spelt out and ultimately a request was made to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the aforesaid arbitration agreement. This was followed by a reminder request addressed to the same Chief Engineer by the petitioner on 7th January, 2006. Since the respondents failed to act in appointing the Arbitrator despite the receipt of the aforesaid two communications, the petitioner invoking Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation, 1996 approached this Court with a prayer for appointment of the...

J.B. Pipes Vs. Madan Lal and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008ACJ574

V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. Respondent No. 2 absent despite service and having appeared earlier through an advocate; hence, set ex parte.2. Reply filed by the respondent No. 3 has been perused. Heard. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal shall be treated to have been filed in time. The application is disposed of.F.A.O. No. 395 of 2007:3. The appeal is taken up for admission today. Heard. The vehicle involved in the accident was a truck bearing registration No. PB 08-V 6775. The contention of the claimant was that while the claimant was going on a bicycle, this truck being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit against the claimant causing injuries to him.4. The following five issues were framed:(1) Whether the respondent No. 1, Jag-tar Singh was driving vehicle truck No. PB 08-V 6775 in a rash and negligent manner on Una-Hoshiarpur Road near Jhalera at about 2.30 p.m. on 3.4.2000 and while driving so, struck the truck with Madan La...

Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC75

Surinder Singh, J.1. The appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of rupees 40,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year allegedly found in his possession 18 kg. and 500 grams of poppy husk.2. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 11-1-2004, PW 9 Sub Inspector Balbir Singh along with PW 3 Head Constable Ranjit Singh and PW 4 Constable Rajesh Kumar were on patrol duty and at about 3.30 p.m. laid a Naka near a place known as 'Jagat Khana'. The appellant was coming from Rajpura side carrying a gunny bag on his head. On seeing the Police Naka party, he tried to escape but the police officials overpowered him. PW 1 Surinder Singh and PW 2 Gurnam Singh also came on the spot in the mean time and they were also associated in the investigation of the case. The appellant was asked in their ...

Deep Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This Judgment shall dispose of the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 against the order passed by the respondents dismissing the petitioner from services w.e.f. 2.6.1999. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in BSF on 9.5.1989. On 12.5.1999, the petitioner was detailed on duly to BOP Moraghati in West Bengal and at about 0800 hours he was on duty along with other Constables. During his duties one villager named Rissudin came with an axe to plough his fields ahead of border road and the petitioner told the said villager that he has no instructions to allow any villager to go ahead of O.P.No. 3. On this, the villager threatened to lodge a false complaint against the petitioner and made a false complaint to his Headquarter that the petitioner has allowed three civilians to cross the border along with three pairs of cattle. The Dy. Commandant thereafter visited the spot and enquired about the smuggling of...

Black Gold Rubber Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the show cause notices and the order passed by respondent No. 4 as against the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner/Unit is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of tread rubber, cushion compound etc. falling under Chapter 40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The firm is located at Rampur Ghat, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. It was alleged that on 7.1.2003, the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, New Delhi issued various fiscal incentives for the States of Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal pertaining to Central Excise, Income tax and Central investment subsidy. In line with the said memorandum, the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued two notifications granting exemption to thrust industries which could be...

Soffimat S.A. and anr. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The State of Himachal Pradesh pursuant to the policy guidelines of the Government of India to allow power generation in the private sector, invited bids from private parties for the purpose of setting up Hydro Electric Projects (HEP) in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 2. The petitioner No. 1 M/s. Soffimat is a Company having its registered office at Paris. In the competitive bidding it also bid for setting up HEPs at Bharmour (45 MW) and Harsar (60 MW). The petitioner No. 2 M/s. Sobra Power Ltd. a Company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Chandigarh is stated to be a subsidiary of petitioner No. 1. 3. On 21st June, 2000, Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) were entered into between the State of Himachal Pradesh and M/s. S. offimat for the projects at Harsar and Bharmour. Clause 9 of the MOUs provided that the Company would provide 15% of the energy generated at the project and as measured at the Interconnection point free of cost to t...

Naresh Kumar and Randhir Ranta Vs. H.P. University

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(1)ShimLC67

Deepak Gupta, J.1. By this judgment we shall dispose of two writ petitions since identical questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases. 2. CWP No. 1412 of 2007 has been filed by Dr. Randhir Ranta whose grievance is that the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal has wrongly not granted any interim relief in his favour. CWP No. 1045 of 2007 has been filed by Naresh Kumar, who is a student of H.P. University. He is also President of the Students Welfare Association and has filed this petition in public interest. The controversy is short. The respondent-University invited applications in the month of November, 2006 for filling up posts of teachers in H.P. University. At the relevant time no guidelines or criteria had been laid down for selection of the teachers. The teachers were being appointed only on the basis of interview. 3. On 27.7.2007 the Executive Council held a meeting and approved certain criteria/guidelines to screen the applicants for recruitment to the posts of tea...

Naresh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (2008)2LLJ819HP

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the award passed by the Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala camp at Mandi, on June 8,2007.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar on daily wages by respondents No. 1 and 2 w.e.f. January 1, 2001. The petitioner worked without break till June 30, 2003. His services were terminated by respondents No. 1 and 2 orally w.e.f. July 1, 2003. The petitioner filed an OA before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and during the pendency of the said application, he was re-engaged by the respondents w.e.f. January 4, 2003. The O.A. was withdrawn on August 13, 2004. The petitioner was working on re-engagement basis from November 4, 2003 till September 17, 2004. Respondent No. 2 again terminated the services of the petitioner w.e.f. September 18, 2004, without complying with the mandatory provisi...