Himachal Pradesh Court March 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Raymus Porta Buildings Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC274
Surjit Singh, J.1. These objections, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, have been filed by the Union of India, against the award dated 30.5.2001 of the Arbitrator, with regard to Claims No. 1, 2 and 4. Prayer has been made for setting aside the award with regard to the aforesaid three claims.2. Relevant facts may be summed up thus. Executive Engineer, Shimla Central Division No. 1, C.P.W.D., invited tenders for certain prefabricated structures. Respondent was one of the tenderers. The rates quoted by him and one more party were found to be lower than the rates quoted by other tenderers. One of the conditions of the tender, i.e. Condition No. 3 of the Special Conditions was that in case the consumption of the quantity of the steel was found to be less than the quantity indicated in the work schedule, recovery at the rate of Rs. 16,000/-, per ton, would be made from the contractor. The respondent did not specify the quantity of the steel, which he was to use ...
Raghubir Singh Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2979
Surjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record.2. Appellant has been convicted by the trial Court (Sessions Court), for offences, under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in respect of the offence, under Section 498-A, IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in respect of offence under Section 306 IPC. He has challenged his conviction and sentence for the aforesaid two offences. His grievance is that there is no evidence connecting him with either of the two offences, he had been charged with.3. Appellant and his mother Smt. Kamla Devi had been sent up for trial on the following allegations. Deceased Kanchan Devi was married to appellant in February, 1992. She was treated well till December, 1995 when the elder brother of the appellant, namely Ranbir Singh, got married and many items of household were given to him in ...
Domebell Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Thakur Enterprises and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: AIR2007HP66
Surinder Singh, J.1. The appellant has filed this Original Side Appeal, against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 14 of 1997, by the learned single Judge, whereby the suit of the appellant was dismissed.2. The facts in brief are that the appellant-company, hereinafter to be called as the 'plaintiff', is a body corporate having its registered office in Ahmednagar. It has branches all over India, out of which they have one branch at Parwanoo, District Solan (HP). The plaintiff deals in electronic goods, like television sets, washing machines, V.C. Rs. etc. etc.3. The respondents, hereinafter to be called as the 'defendants', is a sole partnership firm ,of defendant-Rajeev Thakur, who is engaged in sale and purchase of electronic items.4. The case of the plaintiff has been that the defendant-firm had approached the plaintiff in the year 1991 for the supply of electronic goods on credit, to which the plaintiff had agreed and opened an account. The electronic items were suppl...
Parma Ram Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2668
Surjit Singh, J.1. Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, whereby he has been convicted of an offence, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. His grievance is that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence and the law correctly.2. Prosecution version, believing which the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid, may be summed up thus. On 9-3-2001 appellant, who is resident of village Runjh, went to attend a marriage function at the house of one Chiranji Lal. Next day he accompanied the 'Barat' (marriage party) to the bride's place. His wife Chandrawati (deceased) aged about 28 years also went to attend the marriage the next following day. Her father PW-1 Uttam remained at home to take care of the children. On 10-3-2001 around 7.00 p.m. decea...
Nek Ram Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC99
Surjit Singh, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the same judgment of the trial Court, whereby a case, under Sections 29 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, instituted by the State against two persons, namely Nek Ram, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2003 and Mani Ram respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 2003 has been disposed of. By this judgment, appellant Nek Ram has been convicted of the offence, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. Mani Ram respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 2003, has been acquitted.2. Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2003, has been filed by Nek Ram, challenging his conviction and sentence. The other appeal, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 2003, has been filed by the State, challenging the acquittal of respondent Mani Ram. Appellant Nek Ram ...
Munish Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR970]
Sanjay Karol, J.1. This judgment is being dictated in open Court in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner herein is seeking quashing of orders dated 21.9.2001 and 20.12.2001, whereby the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents. Petitioner's father Shri Partap Singh, D.E.S. 345628, M.E.S. while working with the respondents expired on 10.12.1991. It seems that petitioner's mother made an application dated 14.5.1992 for compassionate appointment, which was responded to by the respondents authorities on 4.7.1992. It was clarified that while the petitioner, who was mine at that point of time was ineligible for appointment being below 18 years of age, it was open for the petitioner's mother to apply for 'appointment in MES. She was also asked to submit various documents.3. Admittedly, petitioner's mother did not apply and only in the year 1999 petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, which application wa...
Sonu Kumar and Bal Krishan Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC158
Surjit Singh, J.1. These five appeals are being disposed of together, as they arise out of one judgment, whereby appellants in all the five appeals stand convicted of offences, under Sections 452, 323 read with Section 34 and Section 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code. Even of the five appellants has been awarded the following sentences for the aforesaid offences:(a) Under Section 452,1.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment In default of paymentfor one year and fine of of fine to furtherRs. 2,000/-. imprisonmentfor six months(b) Under Section 323,1.P.C. Simple imprisonment forsix months(c) Under Section 376 (g), Rigorous imprisonmentI.P.C. for ten years and fine of -do-Rs. 5,000/2. First the prosecution version may be noticed. The prosecutrix, aged 32 years, was married to a man, who was employed at a butcher's shop at Baijnath. Her husband fell ill and was perhaps rendered incapable of doing the job with the butcher. The prosecutrix approached the butcher for employing her son, who was then aged ju...
Promod Kumar Vs. B.S.N.L. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC111
Sanjay Karol, J.1. This judgment is being dictated in open Court in presence of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that even though he has been promoted to the post of Telecom Mechanic w.e.f. 6th May, 1996, however, his promotion ought to have been w.e.f. 1st of October, 1993 and in any case also he was entitled for pecuniary/financial benefits of the post of Telecom Mechanic w.e.f. 6th May, 1996.3. Facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as under:On 10th of February, 1987, petitioner was appointed as a regular 'Mazdoor' with the respondents in the office of SDO (Telecom), Shimla -1. On 1st of June, 1990, he was promoted as Lineman and has been functioning as such till he was promoted as Telecom Mechanic. Vide circular dated 16th of October, 1990, respondents introduced a new technical cadre in Groups 'C and 'D' of the department of Telecom. According to the new re-structured cadre, the cadre of Phone Mechanic was to ha...
Bimal Kumar Vs. Ram Kumar and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2007
Reported in: AIR2007HP70
ORDERV.K. Gupta, C.J.1. C.M.P. No.907 of 2006 and C.M.P. No. 24 of 2007 in R.S.A. No. 285 of 2004 and C.M.P. No. 908 of 2006 and C.M.P. No. 27 of 2007 in R.S.A. No. 286 of 2004.Detailed arguments in these cases were heard on 19th March, 2007 when the matters were adjourned for pronouncement of orders on the aforesaid applications. By this common order, all the aforesaid four applications in the aforesaid two separate Regular Second Appeals are being disposed of together because identical issues and questions are involved for consideration and decision therein.2. R.S.A. No. 285 of 2004 and R.S. A. No. 286 of 2004 were filed by the common appellant in both the appeals, namely, Shri Bimal Kumar against the judgments and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan in two Civil First Appeals pending before him against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned the then Senior Sub-Judge, Solan in two Civil Suits pending before him. Both the suits were filed by the opposite partie...
Smt. Leela Devi Vs. Neelmani
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2007
Reported in: AIR2007HP68
ORDERV.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, dated 2-1-1995, vide which findings of learned Senior Sub-Judge, Kullu, dated 27-8-1992 decreeing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for possession were reversed and the suit of the appellant/plaintiff was accordingly dismissed.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the land detailed in the plaint alleging that one Arjungir was father of plaintiff and defendant who died sometime in 1965. His estate was inherited by the plaintiff, defendant and Smt. Maheshru his widow is in equal share. Smt. Maheshru his widow had not given birth to any child from the loins of Arjungir. The plaintiff and defendant had been born to Smt. Bal Dassi, the first wife of Arjungir who had predeceased her husband. It was alleged that after the death of her husband, Smt. Maheshru had executed a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »