Himachal Pradesh Court July 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.
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jagat Ram and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(I)ShimLC76
Surinder Singh, J.1. The respondents were tried and acquitted, for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act), for the failure of sample of salt, in Criminal Case No. 134-1 of 1994 (66-111 of 1994), decided on 27.8.1999 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.2. The instant appeal has been filed by the State having felt aggrieved that though, the independent witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, yet the testimony of the Food Inspector was self explicit and comprehensive to sustain the conviction. The trial Court had wrongly held that the sanction was not proper which has caused the miscarriage of justice.3. The leave to appeal was granted on 28.4.2000. Now the matter has been finally heard.4. Mr. V.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General has forcefully argued that the respondent No. 1 has admitted having taken the sample of iodized salt (RLP mark) by the Food Inspector. An ...
Koji Tateno Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC134
Surjit Singh, J.1. By way of this appeal, under Section 36-B of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, judgment of trial Court, whereby the appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, has been challenged.2. Prosecution version may be summed up thus. On 4.3.2004 around 6.00 a.m. when PW-9 Balwant Singh, then posted as SI In-charge Police Post, Manikaran, accompanied by HHC Bhag Chand (PW-2), Constable Gurdial Singh (PW-1) and HHC Rattan Lal (DW-1), was present at a place called Samod-Nalla near Hurludhar, the appellant was spotted coming from Kasol side. He was carrying a haversack on his back. On seeing the police, the appellant turned somewhat shaky and nervous, which aroused the suspicion of PW-9 SI Balwant Singh. He suspected that the appellant might be carrying some narcotic drug or psychotropic sub...
Pratap Singh Vs. Damodar Dass and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(I)ShimLC95
Sanjay Karol, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia praying the following relief:(i) That order dated 7.1.1986 Annexure P-l, order dated 22.5.1992 Annexure P-5 and order dated 8.7.2002 Annexure P-6 may kindly be set aside and quashed.(ii) The petitioner may kindly be held entitled for resumption of aforesaid land in question under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 read with H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 and further an appropriate writ of mandamus may be issued to respondent No. 7 to pass appropriate order for resumption of land in question in favour of the petitioner or in the alternative consider the case of the petitioner for resumption of the said land in accordance with law.Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are as under:2. On 26.9.1971, one Shri Roshan Lal alias Gian Chand transferred ownership rights of the land in question in favour of petitioner Partap Singh, minor having born on 19.7.1967. With...
Shyam Sunder Vs. H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC72
M.R. Verma, Chairman1. The applicant herein has assailed his transfer from Barmana to Shimla vide Annexure-A/1 vice respondent No. 3 who has been transferred from Shimla to Barmana and has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer.2. The case of the applicant in brief is that the impugned transfer order has been passed at the behest and with a view to accommodate respondent No. 3 who has not complete even one year of service at Shimla and the impugned transfer is not in public interest or exigency of service but the power has been exercised just to accommodate and adjust respondent No. 3 at the place of his choice which is impermissible in law. It has further been claimed that the applicant is suffering from Chronic Psychotropic disorder and is under treatment since 2003. His wife is working as JBT Teacher and belongs to District cadre. Thus the applicant is not in a position to shift to Shimla and deserves more sympathetic attitude than shown to respondent No. 3, hen...
Kalpana Khatu Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: (2008)IILLJ131HP
ORDERDev Darshan Sud, J.1. The petitioner, who is an employee with the Canara Bank, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that Annexure P-6 which are the proceedings before the Disciplinary Authority, Annexure P-7, the order passed by the Deputy General Manager, imposing punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect and the order passed in appeal Annexure P-9, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.2. Brief facts, necessary for consideration are that the petitioner, while working as a clerk in the Canara Bank, Shimla Branch, was charge sheeted on the allegations that on November 11, 1999 when she was entrusted with the duties as a Cashier in the Branch, she made unwarranted/derogatory remarks against the complainant Raju Lakara, who was also working as a clerk in the Bank. The imputation was that she has used the words 'Sab...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Amrik Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4177
Surinder Singh, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed by the State, feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in criminal case No. 41/2 of 1996, decided on 1-9-1999.2. Leave to appeal was granted on 5-5-2000. Now the matter has been taken up for final hearing.3. It is contended in the appeal that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and reasoning given for acquittal is based upon unrealistic standard, which has caused the miscarriage of justice.4. I have heard Shri V.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Shri Suneet Goel, learned Counsel for the respondent and have reappreciated and examined the evidence on record.5. In brief, the prosecution story is that PW 2 Sidharth Parmar, complainant was driving his Maruti Car No. HIH-70 and was going to Chandigarh with his mother Dr. Veena Parmar (PW 3), who was sitting besides him on the front seat. Whe...
State Bank of India and ors. Vs. Shri B.D. Mandhotra
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2007
Reported in: 2008(I)ShimLC81
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the LPA filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 14.11.2006, passed in CWP No. 46 of 2000.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was employed as Deputy Manager with appellant No. 1. He was posted as Branch Manager at Sera Branch from July 1994 to July 1996. During this period, he was alleged to have committed a number of acts of misconduct for which his explanation was called, which was not found to be satisfactory. Hence he was charge-sheeted. The charges as against the respondent were as under:Charge No. IYou violated Bank's laid down instructions in regard to sanction of loan to your relative, self and others.Charge No. IIYou misutilised your official position in granting advance to certain borrower, in excess of your, discretionary power. You also did not report the irregularity to your Controlling Authority.Charge No. IllYou committed various acts of omission and commission while handling certain transact...
Dile Ram Dhatwalia and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ShimLC288
Deepak Gupta, J.1. By this judgment the aforesaid two writ petitions are being disposed of since common questions of law and fact arise in these cases. The petitioners are both employees of the National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur. The short question in dispute is whether the retirement age of the non-teaching staff in this Institute is 60 years or 58 years?2. The National Institute of Technology (NIT) was earlier known as the Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur. It was managed by a Society. This Society had framed Bye-Laws to govern the service conditions of its employees. Bye-Law 11(iii) which is relevant for our purpose reads as follows:(iii) On completion of the period of probation or the extended period of probation as the case may be, the employee shall, if his work and conduct during the period of probation has been found satisfactory, shall be confirmed in the post and he shall continue to hold his office till the close of the academic session in which he attains the a...
Vijay Kumar Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ871
ORDERSurjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record.A request was made by the Police to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mandi, seeking permission to take photographs of the revision petitioner for the purpose of comparing the same with the photograph of a man appearing in an obscene movie clipping. The application was made under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners' Act. Admittedly, the revision petitioner had been arrested in connection with a case on the complaint of a woman and was in custody as an under-trial when the application was moved. The Magistrate dismissed the application of the police. State went in revision to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision petition and consequently the order of the Magistrate has been set aside and the prayer of the police for taking photographs of the revision petitioner granted.2. It is not in dispute that the provision 'of Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners' Act is applicable to the fact...
Ram Lok and ors. Vs. Bogalia
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ShimLC230
Kuldip Singh, J.1. The plaintiffs are in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.12.1999 passed by learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 36-S/13 of 1999 dismissing the appeal of the appellants. The parties are referred in the same manner as in the trial Court.2. The facts, in brief, are that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that mutation No. 343 dated 26.8.1994 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs, plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 have become owners of share relinquished in favour of their predecessor by Hakim before 1960, permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant not to interfere in the property falling in the share of plaintiffs.3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that parties have joint landed property in village Kuranwala, Tehsil Kasauli comprised in Khata No. 12, Khatauni No. 13 to 18, Kita 66 measuring 137 Bighas 10 Biswas and Khata No. 33 Khatauni No. 112 and 113 Kitas 14 measuring 173 Bighas 6 Eiswas Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan. Tholu wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »