Himachal Pradesh Court November 2007 Judgments

Dharam Dev Vs. Mohinder Singh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008ACJ1190

Deepak Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. This judgment shall dispose of two cross-appeals as they arise out of the same award.2. Mohinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act with the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi. In this claim petition it was alleged that on 13.1.2000 he had purchased ration from a shop at village Tilli. It was about 6.15 p.m. He was waiting for a bus to go back to his village. Bus No. HP 33-5409 owned by the H.R.T.C. and driven by Dharam Dev came. The claimant gave a signal that the bus be stopped. The bus was stopped by the driver and the petitioner was getting on to the bus when the driver of the bus without waiting for any signal from the conductor started the bus as a result of which the petitioner fell down and suffered injuries. The respondent No. 3 did not stop and drove the bus towards Mandi. The petitioner was taken to the Zonal Hospital at Mandi and he remained under treatment as ...

Rahul Bhargava Vs. Vinod Kohli and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(I)ShimLC385

Kuldip Singh, J.1. The defendant No. 1 is in appeal against the judgment, decree, dated 1.3.2000, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 34-S/13 of 1997, reversing judgment and decree, dated 30.4.1997, passed by learned Sub Judge (1), Shimla in Case No. 15/1 of 96/90.2. The facts as emerge from the plaint are that respondents No. 1, 2 filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement, dated 7.6.1989 and permanent prohibitory injunction against appellant-defendant No. 1. The respondent No. 3 was also impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit. It has been alleged that husband of respondent No. 1 was tenant under father of appellant in Cottage No. 1, Bhargav Estate, Tutikandi. The father of appellant approached respondent No. 2 and offered to sell to respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2 Cottage No. 2 comprised in khasra Nos. 549/513/342/1 and 546/334/1 and ultimately, it was agreed that respondent No. 1 would purchase Cottage No. 2, for a sale considerat...

Anil Chandel Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1792,2008(I)ShimLC370

Kuldip Singh, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 5.5.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kullu in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2005/RBT. Cr. Appeal No. 01/2005.2. The facts in brief are that Tempo Trax No. HP-24A 2186 was seized by Station House Officer, Banjar on 10.1.2002 along with 32 deodar sleepers, a forest produce which was being transported without permit in violation of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short 'Act'). After registration of FIR No. 07/2002 vehicle along with seized timber were produced before the Authorized Officer for taking action under Section 52-A of the Act.3. The authorized officer issued show-cause notices to Anil Chandel owner and Ramesh Kumar driver of the vehicle in terms of Section 52-B of the Act. The owner and driver filed replies to the show-cause. The parties led their evidence. The authorized officer vide order dated 19.11.2004 held that vehicle in question was transporting the timber in an illicit manne...

Jawala Stone Crusher Vs. Swaran Singh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (2008)2LLJ783HP

ORDERRajiv Sharma, J.1. A challenge has been laid by the petitioner to the appellate order passed by the Joint Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on August 29, 2006.2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenient sake) had submitted his gratuity claim in the prescribed pro forma on October 14, 2003. He had primarily contended in his claim that he had worked as driver with the employer with effect from April 18, 1993 to July 9, 2003, but he has not been paid the gratuity. The Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Authority had framed the following issues:1. Whether the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972 and The Payment of Gratuity (Himachal Pradesh) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred as Act and Rules respectively) are applicable to the respondent as per Section 1(3) of the Act?2. Whether the Applicant is an 'Employer within the mea...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jagish Ram Krishan Chand

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(HP)327,[2008]304ITR45(HP)

Deepak Gupta, J.1. The following questions have been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 256 of the IT Act, 1961:1. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding the view of the CIT(A) that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of Sections 80HH and 80J when it was not claimed in the original return and where no audit report was enclosed?2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the claim of the assessee which was made after completion of original assessment in the revised return?2. As far as the first question is concerned, there is no longer any dispute with regard to the fact that an assessee can file a revised return and can claim the benefit under Sections 80HH and 80J, even if, the said benefits were not claimed in the original return.3. By now it is well settled law that filing of the audit report is not necessary with the return itself. In case there is sufficient...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. H.P. Agro Industries

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(HP)183,[2008]301ITR118(HP)

1. The following two questions had been referred for the opinion of this Court:1. R.A. No. 286Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing a sum of Rs. 67,237 paid on account of rent of guest house maintained by the assessee when there is specific provision for disallowance under Section 37(4) of the IT Act, 1961?2. R.A. No. 2872. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of the first appellate authority in directing the AO not to reduce the amount of subsidy to arrive at the actual cost of assets under Section 43(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for allowing depreciation?3. The first question is squarely covered by a judgment of the apex Court in Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT and Anr. : [2005]278ITR546(SC) , where in para 29 the apex Court held as under:The only question which we are called upon to consider in the instant case is whether the expression 'premises a...

Cit Vs. Hpsidc

Court: Himachal Pradesh

1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction under Section 80J on the capital employed without reducing the proportionate liability of head office incurred in respect of units in which deduction under Section 80J was claimed ?2. The brief facts are that the assessee had five units including the units of liquor bottling plant and television factory. The aforesaid two units were not eligible for purposes of deduction under Section 80J. In respect of the other three units, deduction was held to be allowable but the assessing officer reduced certain liabilities from the total assets of the head office on proportionate basis. The assessee had only reduced the current liability whereas the assessing officer found it necessary to ascertain the proportionate liability of the head office in respect of the secured and unsecured loans used for the purpose...

Provident Fund Inspector Vs. Smt. Sudha Sood and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: [2008(118)FLR145],(2008)IIILLJ632HP,2008(I)ShimLC367

Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been directed against judgment dated 21.2.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. (ii), Shimla in Cr. Case No. 234/3 of 99/92, acquitting the respondents under Section 14-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952.2. The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is an Enforcement Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, he is authorized to file the complaint. The respondents have failed to pay the Provident Fund contributions, administrative charges for the period April 1990 to May 1990 and they have contravened Section 6 of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (for short Act) read with paragraphs 29, 30 and 38 of the scheme, framed under the Act, which is punishable under Section 14 (1-A) read with Section 14-A of the Act.3. The respondents have failed to submit returns for the period March 1990 to May 1990 and have thus contr...

Gurpal Singh Vs. Sarita and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(I)ShimLC337

Sanjay Karol, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 13.8.1999 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. in Cr. Complaint No. 89/3 of 1997, titled as Gurpal Singh v. Sarita and Anr.2. The appellant's complaint, filed under Section 138 of the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was dismissed on the ground that the firm, on whose behalf the cheque in question was issued by the accused persons favouring the complainant, was not arrayed as a party to the complaint.3. The appellant filed a complaint alleging that a cheque amounting to Rs. 72,290/- issued by the respondents/accused persons, on presentation was dishonoured with the remarks 'Exceeds arrangements'. Inspite of legal notice dated 6.2.1997 having been served upon them, the cheque amount was not cleared by them. The trial Court dismissed the complaint, inter alia on the ground that the firm on whose behalf the ch...

Om Prakash and anr. Vs. State of H.P. and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(I)ShimLC379

Sanjay Karol, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 67-S/13 of 1995/88 titled as State of H.P. Anr. v. Om Parkash and Anr. reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.3.1987 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Shimla in Civil Suit No. 310/1 of 84/ 83, partly decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of money.2. For the purpose of convenience, the appellants hereinafter are referred to as 'the plaintiffs' and the respondents herein are referred to as 'the defendants'.3. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether findings of the Learned Additional District Judge, Shimla dated 28.2.1997 are vitiated and those are without jurisdiction for want of proper appreciation of the point of controversy as involved in this case?2. Whether there has been mis-reading and mis-appreciation of the pleadings of the parties as well as the oral and documentary eviden...