Himachal Pradesh Court August 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.
Ravi Kant and anr. Vs. Ram Kishan and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC394
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. In the impugned order dated 30th June, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, the application of the petitioners filed under Order 20 Rule 18 had been practically rejected even though a direction indeed had been issued in the operative part of the Order for sending of the preliminary decree sheet and the jamabandis etc. to the Collector for effecting partition of the property in question. Let us notice the facts first.2. A suit for possession by way of partition was filed by the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, being Civil Suit No. 53 of 1996. Out of many Issues which were framed in the said suit, Issue No. 1 alone was relevant for determining and adjudicating upon the contentious and rival claims of the parties in the suit. Issue No. 1 reads thus:1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession by way of partition of abadi land in suit to the extent of half share as prayed for? OPP.3. Th...
Prem Dass Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC313
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. A challenge has been laid by way of this regular second appeal to the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Hamirpur on 2.1.2001 in Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1993.2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the second appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake, had filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class (1), Hamirpur for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over land as comprised in Khasra Nos. 13 to 16, 23 to 25, 27 to 28 and 76 to 81, measuring 5354.78 Sq. Mtrs. situated in Up Mahal Chauhala, Khurd Mahal, Hamirpur as per Jamabandi for the year 1980-81.3. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties had framed the following issues:1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP2. Whether the suit is not ...
Sant Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC62
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition which can be culled out from the pleadings of the parties are that the process for filling up the posts of Sub-Inspectors by way of direct recruitment was initiated in the year 1977. The petitioner was selected for the post of Sub-Inspector and was placed at Sr. No. 12 of the merit list drawn at the time of selection. He joined his duties on 20.3.1978. The respondents No. 5 to 9 were over age at the time of selection though their names found mention in the merit list drawn at the time of filling up the posts of Sub-Inspectors by way of direct recruitment. Their case was taken with the competent authority by the Head of the Department for relaxation in age. The respondents No. 5 to 9 were appointed by relaxation in age criteria and they joined in the month of July, 1980 as Sub-Inspectors. The petitioner was ranking senior to the respondents No. 5 to 9 since he had joined his duties on 20.3.1978 and...
Sidh Shri Baba Balak Nath Mandir Sabha Vs. Pyare Chand
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC49
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. A challenge has been laid by the petitioner to the order passed by the H.P. Labour Court, Shimla dated 3.12.2005 in application No. 1 of 2002.2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent had filed application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the H.P. Labour Court, Shimla on 2.1.2002 claiming a sum of Rs. 23,093/-. The petitioner had filed reply to the petition filed by the respondent and had taken a preliminary objection therein that there was no relationship of master and servant since the respondent was engaged as a contractor and not as a workman. The respondent had filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the petitioner. The Labour Court allowed the application filed by the respondent on 3.12.2005 and accordingly the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 23,093 with interests @ 9% till the realization of the amount.3. Mr. Sunit Goel, Advocate had primarily taken two pleas, fi...
Sita Devi Vs. Mohinder Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC424
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is the plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession of the suit land, based on an agreement Ex. PW-2/A entered into between the plaintiff and her mother-in-law Smt. Rahaunsu Devi, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit. A decree declaring gift deed, the suit land, made in favour of defendant No. 2, Kishan (who was the brother-in-law of the plaintiff), to be null and void and in the alternative a decree for recovery of Rs. 35,000/- was prayed for.2. The plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of Rahaunsu Devi (who died during the pendency of the appeal before the learned District Judge). The plaintiff pleaded that her husband was living jointly with defendants 1 and 2; she and her husband had been looking after them. At the time when the marriage of defendant No. 2 Kishan, brother-in-law of the plai...
Ravi Kant Vs. Bhupender Kumar
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2007
Reported in: AIR2008HP31
ORDERDev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is the defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge affirming the findings of the learned Sub Judge in a suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiff praying for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from raising any construction over the suit land. The suit was amended during the pendency of the appeal and a decree for possession was prayed.2. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for payment prohibitory injunction restraining and prohibiting the appellant-defendant Sita Ram (who was also a defendant in the suit) from raising any construction over the land comprised in Khasra No. 397/204, measuring 3 bighas, situated in Mauza Bhatanwali, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur on the allegations that the plaintiff-respondent is owner in possession of this land and the appellant-Ravi Kant and his father have no right, title or interest in it. It was averred that they were strangers an...
Ramesh Lal and Vinod Bhandari Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ShimLC34
Surinder Singh, J.1. Both these appeals have arisen out of a common judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge Kullu in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 2003, whereby the appellants were convicted of an offence under Section 20 read with Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short, 'the Act', and each of the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. one lac and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of two years, allegedly having in their possession 2.270 kg. Charas.Prosecution case2. Succinctly, the prosecution story is that on 21.9.2003, at about 4.00 a.m., the Police party headed by SHO Dinesh Kumar (PW6) was present on the National Highway at the place known 'Bandrol', they saw both the appellants coming from Manali side at such an odd hour. Appellant Vinod Bhandari was carrying a bag and Ramesh Lal was accompanying him, and suspected about the possessio...
Abhinav Verma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(I)ShimLC90
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. A detailed judgment was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 1st June, 2006 in CWP No. 432 of 2006 in which this Court had taken a very clear view that even though the category of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) in the matter of admissions to professional colleges such as medical colleges and dental colleges has a clear nexus With the object sought to be achieved, viz. the integration of Non-Resident Indians living abroad into Indian mainstream and making available to them the facilities in existence in the Country of their origin, in so far as the category of 'NRI sponsored candidates' is concerned, no such nexus could be said to be linked with any object sought to be achieved by creating such a category. By its very definition as well as in common parlance the category of 'NRI sponsored candidates', comprises of only such persons who actually and physically are Indians residing in India. This categorization, therefore, of NRI sponsored candidates was declared by...
Mohan Meakins Limited Vs. R. Jagavtar and Company
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC110,2007(3)ShimLC42
Kuldip Singh, J.1. The complainant is in appeal against the judgment dated 29.9.1999 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, Camp at Solan in Cr. Case No. 15/4 of 97/1992, acquitting the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'Act').2. The brief facts are that the complainant Company filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act against respondent, alleging therein that respondent is proprietor of firm M/s. Jagavtar and Company, Ujjain, District Kangra. The respondent purchased Golden Eagle Beer from the complainant against invoice No. 3000 dated 9.4.1992 and issued two cheques bearing Nos. 0047775 and 0047776, both dated 10.4.1992 for Rs. 1,03,1487 each drawn on Union Bank of India, Kangra towards the payment of price of goods purchased by the respondent. The cheques on presentation by the complainant were not encashed and were received back on 18.5.1992 with the remarks 'Exceeds arrangement'. The co...
Smt. Devku and ors. Vs. Smt. Sunari and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2008HP15
ORDERRajiv Sharma, J.1. A challenge has been laid by way of this regular second appeal to the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Kullu on 1-5-1995 in Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1993.2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the second appeal are that the appellants-plaintiffs hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs for convenience sake, had filed a civil suit in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Lahaul-Spiti District at Kullu for declaration.3. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties had framed the following issues:1. Whether the plaintiffs are co-owners in possession with defendant Nos. 1, 7 & 8 of suit land, as alleged? OPP2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed? OPP3. Whether Shri Himatu executed a valid Will on 16-4-1985 in favour of defendant No. 1 as alleged? OPD-14. Whether the sale of the suit land by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 5, 2 to 6 dated 25-2-199...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »