Himachal Pradesh Court April 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.
Harjeet Kaur Vs. Bhupinder Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2007
Reported in: AIR2007HP96,II(2007)DMC415
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. The wife has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 1-5-2000 passed the learned District Judge, Shimla in H.M.A.C. No. 6-S/3 of 1997 dissolving the marriage of the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. The parties in the judgment are referred in the same manner as in the impugned judgment and decree.'2. The facts disclosed in the petition filed by husband are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 7-4-1985 according to rites and customs of Sikhs at Ambala. The parties initially cohabited at Paonta Sahib and then at Jutogh, Shimla where the petitioner was posted. The behaviour of the respondent towards petitioner was rude and cruel from the very beginning. She would pick up quarrel over petty matters. She never attended to the friends and relatives of the petitioner whenever they visited his place. The attitude of the respondent towards mother, sisters and other members of petitioner's father's family was also no...
Janeshwar Lal Rajeshwar Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(HP)627
Deepak Gupta, J.1. The aforesaid reference has been made to us to decide the following purported question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, while upholding penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, for each of the asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85, was right in law in giving the finding that there was no reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the return in time?2. In fact, prima facie, in our opinion the question of law, as framed by the Tribunal, is not a question of law at all. However, since this question has been referred to us, we are answering the same.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had admittedly not filed his returns within time, for the asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85. The assessee filed the return for the asst. yr. 1983-84 on 7th Aug., 1985, whereas the due date was 31st July, 1983. For the asst. yr. 1984-85 the due date was 31st July, 1984 but the return was filed on 9th Aug., 1985. It...
Sikand and Company Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR465],2007(2)ShimLC49
Deepak Gupta, J.1. These two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the same award. One writ petition has been filed by the workman and second by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court Shimla in Reference No. 56 of 1994 decided on 26.5.2003.2. The undisputed facts are that the workman was employed in the Nagrota Bagwan office of the employer on 10.2.1983 at a monthly salary of Rs. 850/- alongwith benefits such as bonus, provident fund, gratuity, rent free accommodation etc. The case of the workman is that he was assured that he would be permanently posted at Nagrota Bagwan. On 23.11.1993, the employer transferred the services of the workman and a letter was sent to him transferring him to Barmana in District Bilaspur, H.R He made a representation against the order on the ground that he was advised by the doctor not to a take long journey. Since the workman did not join his service, the employer terminated his services vide l...
Manna Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC331
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. Plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge dismissing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the order of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class (II), Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., whereby the suit for declaration filed by him has been dismissed,2. Proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act were initiated by the revenue authorities against the appellant-plaintiff for encroaching on Government land. Appellant was held to be an encroacher and an order of eviction was passed by the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade. The appellant filed a suit for declaration in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class (II), Rohru on the plea that he is an agriculturist by profession and the land in dispute has been occupied by the predecessor in interest of the appellant from generation to generation. Land in khasra-No. 79/163 min Kh. No. 4/1, measuring (M3-19 hectares was in possession of his ancestors...
Beli Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC227
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 12th June, 2003 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for service pension has been declined.2. The minimum facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner joined the Indian Army as Sepoy and was enrolled on 17th January, 1957. The petitioner was discharged from the Army on 24th April, 1967 and the cause of discharge was shown as 'service no longer required'. The petitioner had participated in Indo-China War, 1962 and thereafter Indo-Pak War, 1965. It appears from the pleadings that the petitioner has sent application to the competent authority on 16th June, 2001 seeking service pension. In sequel to the application preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner was called upon vide Annexure P-2A dated 5th February, 2002 to send full particulars of application with Army number to the authorities. The petitioner was informed vide communication dated 12th June, 2003 that as per the existing orders t...
Shri Ishwar Dass Sood Vs. H.P. Vidhan Sabha and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC173
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. By medium of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):(a) Office order dated 24.3.1999 (Annexure PL) and 30.10.2003 (Annexure PS) issued by the State Government may kindly be quashed and set aside.(b) That respondents may kindly be directed to compute the special pay towards pension at the time when the petitioner retired.(c) That the respondents be directed to amend the definition of 'emoluments' and 'pay' in the fundamental rules as it existed at the time when the petitioner retired.(d) That the respondents be directed to take follow up action in terms of clarification issued by the State of Punjab vide letter dated 10.8.1999 (Annexure PN).(e) That the respondents be directed not to discriminate the petitioner who is a pre-1986 retiree with those of the post-1986 retirees and be held entitled to same and similar benefits as are given to the post-1986 retirees.2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that as per inst...
Satinder Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: AIR2007HP77
Deepak Gupta, J.1. The Viceregal Lodge at Shimla has been the subject-matter of a number of writ petitions. At one stage there was a proposal to turn this building into a five star hotel. One Rajeev Mankotia thereafter filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 862 of 1990 in the Supreme Court of India. This petition was disposed of by an erudite judgment reported in Rajeev Mankotia v. Secretary to the President of India and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 2766.2. After the Shimla became the summer capital of British India there was a move to find a suitable site and build an appropriate residence for the Viceroy of India. The Viceregal Lodge was built at the present site and the 17th Viceroy, Earl Dufferin, was the first Viceroy to occupy the premises. The history of the building has been in encapsulated by the Apex Court in para 2 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as follows:2. The journey of Simla, Summer Capital of the Supreme Government, started in 1827 by the first Governor General, Earl of Amherst and ...
B.L. Negi Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC198
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Mr. P.C. Sharma after arguing the matter for some time has prayed that he is confining his challenge to the appellate order (Annexure P-9), dated 31st July, 2002. Mr. P.C. Sharma submits that against the major penalty of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, he had preferred appeal to the appellate authority as per Regulation 17 of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations'). The petitioner has not placed on record the copy of appeal, but has produced the same for perusal of this Court during the course of arguments.2. Mr. P.C. Sharma has contended that the appellate order dated 31st July, 2002 is neither reasoned nor speaking. Mr. Sharma further contended that as per Regulation 17 of the Union Bank of India every ground taken in the appeal was to be considered and thereafter reasoned order was required to be passed.3. Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Counsel appearing on b...
Prakash Chand Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(II)ShimLC334
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, dated 31.12.2005, vide which the appellant was held guilty under Section 307 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1-1/2 years.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 30.12.2002 a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was made before the police by Smt. Kamlesh Kumari wife of Bidhi Chand that her husband is serving in Merchant Navy and had come on leave. Today at about 9.30 a.m. her husband had gone along with the labourers for cutting of Tuhni tree and Parkash Chand, appellant, (hereinafter referred to as accused) who is the elder brother of her husband came there along with Darat and gave abuses. He asked her husband to leave the place, failing which,...
Chief Engineer, Pathankot Zone and anr. Vs. Bharat Construction and an ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC510
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This order shall dispose of the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for setting aside the award dated 12.8.2004 passed by respondent No. 2.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a contract for provision of Md Accn for or at Dharamshala under Contract Agreement (CA) was awarded in favour of contractor by Union of India. The said contract provided for an arbitration agreement in case there was dispute in between the parties. An Arbitrator was appointed on 31.1.2004 for adjudication of the claims who entered into reference on 17.2.2004 and passed the award on 12.8.2004 vide which the petitioners were directed to make payment of Rs. 14,31,837.59 paise which included award amount of Rs. 9,07,327.70 paise plus interest.3. The petitioners have challenged the award on the following grounds, namely, firstly, that the arbitrator had wrongly awarded a sum of Rs. 2,23,752/- ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »