Himachal Pradesh Court May 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.
Gram Panchayat Bat Kalan Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC358
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This petition has been filed against orders dated 6.11.2001 (Annexures P-19 and P-20) as well as order dated 8.1.2002 (Annexure P-24) and orders dated 21.3.2002 and 23.3.2002 (Annexures P-31 and P-32),2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the Rural Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh has issued notification dated 26.6 1999 whereby 50% of the Gram Panchayats notified by the Government could appoint one Gram Panchayat Sahayak on the following conditions:(i) Candidates will have minimum educational qualification of Matriculation.(ii) Candidate will be resident of the same Gram Panchayat.(iii) For this work Gram Panchayat will appoint such person who has knowledge of work of that area and he should not consider it as a source of income.(iv) Minimum age limit will be 18 years.(v) Such person should be appointed as Panchayat Sahayak who should be able to spare time for doing work of that Panchayat.3. The notification has been ...
Virender Kumar Vs. P.S. Rana and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: AIR2007HP63
Deepak Gupta, J.1. The short question which arises for decision in the present case is whether the State Information Commission to be constituted under the Right to Information Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) can be a single member body or must be a multi member body.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that the State of Himachal Pradesh has only appointed the Chief Information, Commissioner and has not appointed any State Information Commissioner(s) and, therefore, the constitution of the Station Information Commission is illegal and not in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Act, which reads as follows.-15(1) xxxxxxx(2) The State Information Commission shall consist of-(a) the State Chief Information Commissioner; and(b) such number of State Information Commissioners, not exceeding ten, as may be deemed necessary.3. The contention of the petitioner is that the State Information Commission must consist of a Chief Information Commissioner and at leas...
H.R.T.C. and ors. Vs. Rajinder Kumar
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC96
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This petition is filed against the award passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala in reference No. 284 of 2003 dated 23.4.2005.2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the appropriate Government has made the following reference to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala:-Whether the termination of services of Shri Rajinder Kumar S/o Shri Manohar Lal, Ex. Conductor by the Managing Director, H.R.T.C. Shimla, 2. The Divisional Manager, H.R.T.C, Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, H.P., 3. The Regional Manager, H.R.T.C, Pathankot w.e.f. 18.2.1998 on the basis of enquiry report is proper and justified? If not, what relief of back wages, seniority, service benefits and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to3. The respondent (hereinafter for convenience will be referred to as workman) filed claim petition before the Labour Court vide Annexure P-2. The petitioner-Corporation had filed reply to w...
Kamal Abrol and Hindustan Petrolium Corporation and anr. Vs. Bhagwan D ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC66
Surjit Singh, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the same judgment and decree, i.e. judgment and decree dated 27.12.1996, of the learned District Judge and so they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Appeals No. 13 and 14 of 1997 have been filed by Smt. Kamal Abrol, who was impleaded as defendant No. 4 in the main suit. She shall hereinafter be referred to as defendant No. 4. Appeal No. 103 of 1997 has been filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., which was impleaded as defendant No. 3 in the suit. So the appellant in this appeal shall be referred to as defendant No. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in all the three appeals had filed the suit and, therefore, they shall be referred to as the plaintiffs. Union of India, The Oil Selection Board and Abhey Singh, respondents in all the three appeals, were impleaded as defendants No. 1, 2 and 5, respectively, in the suit, therefore, they shall be referred to as such in the judgment.3. First the relevant facts may be noticed. Def...
State of H.P. and ors. Vs. Smt. Annapurna Pathak and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: AIR2007HP88
ORDERDeepak Gupta, J.1. Late Rai Bahadur Pandit Sunder Lal Pathak, owned properties at many places including Solan. He had two daughters, namely, Vidyawati Pathak and Rajeshwari Rani Pathak. It appears that Rejeshwari Rani Pathak died unmarried and issueless on 3-12-1983. Her sister Vidyawati was married to Jagat Dhar Sharma Guleri. She had three sons, namely, Sharangdhar Pathak predecessor-in-interest of non-applicants 3(a) to 3(e), Shrikar Pathak and applicant Shridhar Sharma Guleri. Sharangdhar was adopted by his materrial grand-father Rai Bahadur Pt. Sunder Lal Pathak. Shridhar Sharma Guleri died on 22-2-1974. Vidyawati sister of Rajeshwari Rani Pathak had pre-deceased her and expired on 1-1-1974.2. Smt. Rajeshwari Rani Pathak inherited some land from her father which was acquired by the State of H.P. for setting up of H.P. Agriculture University (Agriculture Complex) at Nauni later known as Dr. Y.S. Parmar University (Agriculture & Forestry), Nauni, Solan and compensation was awar...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prem Chand and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ679,2007(3)ShimLC282
Deepak Gupta, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the insurance company has challenged the award passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Una, delivered in M.A.C. Petition No. 133 of 2001; decided on 28.1.2005 on the ground that the award is perverse and liable to be set aside.2. A preliminary objection has been raised that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. : [2003]1SCR567 , the present writ petition is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the following observations of the Apex Court:(6) The right of appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy by filing an appeal on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution on the premise that the insurer has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by the Tribunal. Section 149 (2) of the Act limits the insurer to file an appeal on those enumerated grounds an...
Morepen Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: [2008]83SCL204(HP)
ORDERDeepak Gupta, J.1. By this judgment we are disposing of two Company appeals as they are both directed against the same order passed by the Company Law Board (CLB) dated 16-6-2005.2. Morepen Laboratories Ltd. ('the company') was incorporated in the year 1984 as a Private Limited company. It was re-constituted as a Public Limited Company on 16-3-1992. The Company is engaged in the pharmaceutical business. To meet its capital requirement the Company had invited deposits from the public in the year 1993. The Company was unable to re-pay the matured deposits and various complaints were made by the depositors to the CLB. The CLB on 8-8-2003 came to the conclusion that the company had defaulted in the payment of the deposits from October, 2002. In its order dated 8-8-2003, the CLB recorded that the outstanding position of the fixed deposits as on 31-3-2003 was Rs. 16,183.76 lakhs and this amount was owned by the Company to 85,921 depositors.3. The CLB took cognizance of the matter under ...
State of H.P. Vs. Chander Dev and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC7
Deepak Gupta, J.1. Because of the conflict of views in respect of the retrospective application of the amendment made to the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act between two learned single Judges of this Court, a third Judge has referred the following substantial question of law for decision by the Division Bench:What is the effect of proviso added towards the end of Sub-section (9) of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 6 of 1988 - whether it takes away the vested rights of persons which had vested in them automatically under the provisions of the Principal Act which was in force till the Amendment Act came to be legislated?2. The H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed by the Himachal Pradesh Legislature on 22nd December, 1972. This Act received the assent of the President of India on 2nd February, 1974 and was published in the Himachal Pradesh Rajpatra (Extraordinary) on 21st February, 1974. It ca...
Mukhtiar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC154
Sanjay Karol, J.1. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 29th May, 2003 (P-2). Narration of facts as laid down in the petition are that the petitioner applied for the post of Sepoy/JDO with the respondent-CRPF and after undergoing the recruitment process of clearing written and physical examination, he was offered appointment to the post of Constable (GD) vide communication dated 30th January, 2003. Petitioner was offered the post in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4950. Petitioner joined the respondent on 1st February, 2003 and was posted at Moaklaghat on 14th February, 2003. Thereafter, his further medical examination was successfully conducted and he was sent for further training at Recruitment Training Centre-I. While undergoing training for more than 3-1/2 months, the petitioner was served with the impugned order dated 29th May, 2003, whereby his offer of appointment for the post of Constable/GD in CRPF issued vide office letter dated 31st January, 2003, was cancelled. Peti...
Shankar NaraIn Pradhan Vs. Dhrup Kumar Alias Dhrup Chand
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC201
Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed by plaintiff against the judgment, decree dated 29.5.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge (II) Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 106/99, reversing the judgment, decree dated 15.10.1999 of learned Sub-Judge-I, Dharamshala. The parties here in are referred in the same manner as in the trial Court.2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of defendant from the shop measuring 16'x10', situated in Gabli Dar, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra and for recovery of Rs. 1,000/- on account of arrears of rent for the months of November and December, 1997.3. The plaintiff has pleaded, that he is owner of the shop and the defendant is a tenant in the shop on Rs. 500/- per month rent. The Tenancy starts and ends with the first and last day of the every calendar month. The defendant has not paid the rent for the months of November and December, 1997 amounting to Rs. 1,000/-. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »