Himachal Pradesh Court June 2007 Judgments

Smt. Seetla Devi and ors. Vs. Roop Chand

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC451

Kuldip Singh, J.1. The original defendant Paras Ram had filed this appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 17.6.1995, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1994. The parties are referred in this judgment, as they were referred in the trial court.2. The facts in brief are that plaintiff Roop Chand filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction that he be declared owner in possession of the suit land and defendant has got no right, title or interest over the suit land, plaintiff is not bound by the wrong revenue entries appearing in the name of Ram Chand deceased. Consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction has also been prayed against the defendant from causing interference in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff on the suit land.3. The further case of the plaintiff is that Ram Chand was the owner and plaintiff was tenant under said Ram Chand on the suit land. Ram Chand had died without leaving wife...

State Bank of India Vs. Indira Building Works and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC349

Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. The Decree Holder is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Executing Court passed in an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure objecting the execution of the decree. A compromise decree for recovery of Rs. 43,065.40 paise was passed in the suit on 10.11.1994. In execution proceedings, the executability of the decree has been challenged by the Judgment Debtor alleging fraud. It has been stated that while instituting the suit, in which the compromise was entered into, a fraud has been practiced on the Judgment Debtor, as on 21.10.1991, a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was not shown in the account of the Judgment Debtor which, if considered, would wipe out the entire liability of the Judgment Debtor. The suit, out of which present proceedings arise, had been filed on 12.8.1993. The learned Executing Court allowed the petition and a direction was issued to the Decree Holder to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- and also to refund the purported excess amount of Rs. ...

Kamlesh Kumari and anr. Vs. Piaro Devi and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC469

Kuldip Singh, J.1. The plaintiffs are in appeal against judgment, decree dated 31.8.1995 passed by learned District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 156 of 1990, allowing the appeal of the original defendant and dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. The parties are referred in the same manner as in the trial Court.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are owner in possession of land comprised in Khewat No. 14, Khatauni No. 15, Khasra No. 178, measuring 5 Kanals 1 marla vide jamabandi for the year 1982-83, situated in village Bagga Barot, Tehsil Amb, District Una. The entry of tenant at-will in favour of defendant in Misal Hakiat is wrong and illegal as Assistant Consolidation Officer (ACO) had no jurisdiction to make this entry in favour of the defendant. The consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs has also been prayed. In the alternative, prayer for possession of the suit land has also be...

Jagdish Ram and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008ACJ433

Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for compensation.Facts of the case:2. Brief facts of the case are that Soma Devi, wife of plaintiff No. 1 and mother of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5, was motivated for a family planning operation by the defendants. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 were incharge of the operation/surgery and actual surgery of tubectomy was performed on Soma Devi by defendant No. 4. It has been pleaded that no proper medical care was taken and the plaintiff's wife, who was hale and hearty, died as a result of negligence of defendant No. 4 who performed surgery on her. The plaintiffs have alleged that there were no proper facilities for surgery at Civil Dispensary, Kalol and nor any anaesthetist was attending the patients.3. In reply, the defendants denied any negligence and pleaded that the surgery was performed under local and ...

State of H.P. Vs. Girdhari Lal

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2007CriLJ4347

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellant/State of H. P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dharamshala, dated 27-2-1999 and order dated 4-5-1999, vide which the respondent was held guilty under Section 279 and 304-A, IPC but was released under Section 4 of Probation of' fenders Act.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a challan was filed before the learned trial Court under the above sections on the allegations that the respondent was driving jeep No. DL-9683 rashly and negligently on 9-12-1984 and it hit Smt. Prakasho Devi and then one Jai Ram and thereafter it rolled. clown. The death of said Jal Ram and challan was filed before the learned trial Court under the sections mentioned above. Notice of accusation under Section 251, Cr. P.C. was issued to the respondent who pleaded not guilty. The learned trial Court tried the respondent under the above sections and held the respondent guilty, though the specific section...

Nathu Ram and Co. Vs. Cit

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court under Section 256 of the Income Tax Act:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order dated 20-12-1985 of the first Commissioner (Appeals) had become final and precluded the assessee's right of challenging the fresh assessment on merits after setting aside of the assessment ?2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm filed its return for the assessment year 1983-84. A fire had occurred in one of the forests taken on lease by the assessee and the assessee lodged a claim of Rs. 2,50,800 with the insurance company. The insurance company only paid an amount of Rs. 1,87,000. The assessee claimed that an amount of Rs. 63,800 which was the difference between the amount of loss suffered by it and claimed from the insurance company should be treated as its loss. The assessing officer came to the conclusion that sinc...

Dhanbir and anr. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC182

Deepak Gupta, A.C.J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners who are residents of village Bhailla, Gram Panchayat Nagheta, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. have prayed that the headquarters of Gram Panchayat, Nagheta which are at village Bhailla, be permitted to continue there and the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 be directed to ensure that the record of Gram Panchayat, Nagheta is brought back to the Panchayat Ghar at Bhailla.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that Gram Panchayat Nagheta was set up prior to 1964 under the provisions of H.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 1952 Act). A perusal of the 1952 Act shows that there was no provision for fixing the headquarters of a Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have attached a resolution with the writ petition as Annexure P-2 passed by the Gram Sabha in its meeting held on 9.3.1966. One of the decisions taken was that the Panchayat Ghar should be constructed at village Bhailla....

Ramesh Chand Dhiman and ors. Vs. State of H.P. and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(2)ShimLC260

Deepak Gupta, A.C.J.1. By means of this judgment we are disposing of the aforesaid four writ petitions being CWP Nos. 586 of 1999, 66 of 2000, 118 of 2000 and 170 of 2000 since common questions of law and fact arise for decision in these cases.2. The petitioners in all these cases have passed the Rangers Training Course with honours i.e. they have obtained more than 75% marks in this course and have been awarded honour certificate in Forestry by the Forest Research Institute and College, Government of India, Dehradun, It is not in dispute that the Recruitment Rules for the Himachal Pradesh Forest Service (Class-II) (short HPFS-II) were notified on 28th January, 1966 and provide that recruitment to the HPFS-II shall be both by way of direct recruitment and by promotion, Columns 7, 10 and 11 of the schedule to the rules which are relevant for the purposes of this case read as follows:7. Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits-ESSENTIAL:Associateship diploma of t...

Shanta Lal Chopra Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(HP)420

Deepak Gupta, J.1. The following questions of law have been referred for decision under Section 256 of the IT Act in Ref. Appln. No. 149 of 1993 filed by the applicant and in Ref. Appln. No. 172 of 1993 filed by the assessee (sic-Revenue):(i) In Ref. Appln. No. 1491. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 65,000 received by the assessee from Sh. Anil Kapur and Rs. 1,90,000 from Smt. Shanta Kapur, were not in the nature of receipts of advance money against proposed sale of property ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in making the addition of Rs. 2,55,000 to the income of the assessee whereas such addition could have been made only in the hands of the depositors or could be treated as sale proceeds in the assessee's hands in the year of completion of the project ?(ii) In Ref. Appln. No. 1721. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cas...

Manohar Lal and Ors. Vs. Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and Anr. and Desh ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC193

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of a revision petition filed by the petitioners Manohar Lal etc. under Section 115 of CPC against the order passed by learned District Judge, Shimla on 22.12.2006, vide which the application filed by the petitioners for leave to file appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 11.10.2006, of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla was dismissed. This judgment shall also dispose of cross-objections filed by the petitioners as well as regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, dated 6.1.2007, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla, dated 11.10.2006.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a suit for declaration was filed by Shri Desh Raj Sood as plaintiff alleging that he is working as Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Secretary to Hon'ble the Chief Justice in High Court of Himachal Pradesh and that he was born on 13.7...