Himachal Pradesh Court September 2007 Judgments

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Shashi Sethi and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008ACJ2507,AIR2008HP67,2007(3)ShimLC335

ORDERDev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is defendants' appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge allowing claim of the plaintiffs claiming the benefit of life insurance of the deceased Shri N.K. Seth.2. The undisputed facts are that the deceased Shri N.K. Seth had two policies of life Insurance for the total value of Rs. three lacs including accident insurance. Mr. N.K. Seth, husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, met with an accident while driving his scooter on 24-4-1985 and as a result of the injuries sustained by him he died on 28-4-1985. He was employed as an Accountant in the State Bank of India. He was driving his scooter to his place of work on the ill-fated day when he suffered serious head injuries. He was treated at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla and later on shifted to the PGI, Chandigarh, where he breathed his last on 28-4-1985. The plaintiffs claim that the appellants-defendants have wrongfully denied the insurance claim and, there...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Desh Raj and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008ACJ1353

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the commissioner under the workmen's compensation Act, Palampur in case No. 2 of 2001; decided on 22.8.2006 whereby he has held the appellant insurance company liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,21,004 and interest on the said amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 15.12.2000 till date of deposit.2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:(1) whether the insurance company is liable to pay interest under Section 4-A of the workmen's compensation Act on the awarded amount of the interest component is to be borne by the employer under the law? (2) Whether the claimant can be permitted to lead evidence beyond pleadings?(3) Whether insurance company under the policy of insurance taken under the Workmen's Compensation Act by the employer in respect of his 2 masons and 3 labourers can be made liable to indemnify the workmen of another employer not covered under the said policy of insu...

State of H.P. Vs. Kesar Singh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(I)ShimLC74

Surinder Singh, J.1. The respondents were facing trial under Sections 147, 452, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code but they were acquitted precisely on the grounds that the prosecution failed to examine its witnesses despite many opportunities. Thus the acquittal of the respondents has been challenged in this appeal.2. As a matter of fact the respondents were charge-sheeted on 4.2.1997 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (IV), Shimla, under the aforesaid Sections, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence on 20.5.1997, since then the case lingered on one pretext or the other.3. However, on 31.12.1999, the trial Court passed the following order:31.12.99 Present: Ms. Monika Maihotra, APP for State.All accused are in person with Sh. B.S.-Atri, Advocate.No PWs are present. PW Dr. Ashok Kumar is unserved. PW Ram Krishan, ASI Bishan Dutt and S.I. Tilak Raj are served but not present. Put up for PWs. ...

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Anoop Kumar,

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008CriLJ863,2008(I)ShimLC71

Kuldip Singh, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 296, 367, 368 and 369 of 2000, which have arisen from common judgment dated 19.1.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Appeal Nos. l5-S/10 of 1999, 16-S/10 of 1999, 17-S/10 of 1999 and 18-S/10 of 1999-respectively.2. The facts, in brief, are that five persons, namely, Sukh Ram alias Sukh Pal, Mangal Dev, Gita Ram, Babu Ram and Anoop Kumar were prosecuted. Anoop Kumar was charged under Sections 379, 420, 468 I.P.C. and Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act, Mangal Dev, Sukh Ram, Babu Ram and Gita Ram were charged under Sections 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act. The 'prosecution case is that on 16.11.1990 at about 10.45 a.m. A.S.I. Gurdyal Singh, Incharge, Traffic Barrier, Parwanoo along with H.C. Balak Ram, Constable Hans Raj, Constable Prem Dass and Constable Prabhat Chand were checking vehicles in routine manner at Parwanoo Barrier. Truck No. HP-14-0540 came there and was stopped, four persons were...

Lachhmi Ram and ors. Vs. Kirpa Nand and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2008HP20

ORDERV.K. Ahuja, J.1. This Judgment shall dispose W Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellants under Section 100, C. P. C. against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan on 26-12-1994 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Kandaghat, vide which the suit of the appellants was decreed and they were declared absolute owners of the suit property and were also held entitled to possession of the suit land.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the suit land owned by one Het Ram who mortgaged it with Deep Ram and Anokhi Ram. Het Ram was succeeded by his son Badri Dutt and widow Devkoo. Badri Dutt also left behind Devkoo as the sole owner of this property and she made a gift of this property in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Deep Ram and Anokhi Ram transferred the mortgagee rights in favour of one Gursaran in the year 1952 A. D. who had four children, namely, Kanhya, Umed Ram, Dashodha and Nainawati. Thus the mortgagors be...

Dhanpat Seth and ors. Vs. Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2008HP23,LC2008(2)370,2008(36)PTC938,2007(3)ShimLC324

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in OMP No. 530 of 2005 in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2005 rejecting the prayer of the appellants-plaintiffs for grant of interim relief.2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the appellants, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, filed a suit seeking grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from infringing Patent No. 195917 granted in favour of the plaintiffs on 11-7-2005. The patent has been granted in respect of a device used for manufacture of manually hauling the agricultural produce. According to the plaintiffs, the invention was visualized by them in 1999. They developed it over a period of time and applied for grant of patent on 24-5-2000. The patent was granted in their favour on 11-7-2005 but it will relate back to the date of application i.e. 24-5-2002. The invention of the plaintiffs as set out by them in the plaint is...

Sunil Kumar Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(I)ShimLC24

Surinder Singh, J.1. The appellant has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Suit No. 65 of 1996 decided on May 23, 2001, whereby the suit was dismissed.Case of the Plaintiff.2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant hereinafter called the plaintiff was a sole proprietor of rice mill running under the head and style of 'M/s. Vikarant Enterprises', at village Deoli in Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, which was financed by Punjab National Bank (proforma defendant). As per the terms and conditions of the financial assistance, the plaintiff and the Bank (proforma defendant) aforesaid got the building, plant, machinery and stock insured with the defendants-United India Insurance Company Limited, Ropar branch (respondents No. 1 and 2), hereinafter called the defendants, covering the risk of earthquake, fire and floods, for which two separate insurance policies were taken, one in respect of the building, plant and machin...

Janki Ram Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(1)ShimLC195

Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. The claimant-applicant has preferred this petition under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), against the award made by the Arbitrator-cum-Superintending Engineer dismissing the claim submitted by the claimant.2. It is alleged that the Arbitrator had initially made an award on 30.11.1999 and since he did not decide the claims preferred by the petitioner, an application was made for making an additional award which was disposed of on 14.5.2001.3. Mainly, point urged before me is that the award is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 31 of the Act. These provisions may be noticed at this juncture. Section 31 provides:31. Form and contents of arbitral award.--(1) An arbitral award shall be made in writing and shall be signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal.(2) For the purposes of Sub-section (1), in arbitral proceedings with more than one arbitrator, the signatures of the majority of a...

Dinesh Kumar Vs. Balbir Singh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2008HP59,2008(I)ShimLC54

Rajiv Sharma, J.1. A challenge has been laid to the order dated 19.4.2003 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kangra at Dharamshala in MACP No. 10-G/2002.2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was driving his tempo bearing No. HP-20-5587 on 13.11.2001 and was proceeding from Kaloha to Pragpur. Bus bearing registration No. HP-55-3486 (M/s. Sayal Bus Service) came from Pragpur side and dashed against the tempo resulting in grievous injuries to the petitioner. The accident took place around 10.30 A.M. He was firstly taken to hospital at Dehra (District Kangra) and thereafter underwent treatment in Bharaj Nursing Home, Jallandhar Road, Hoshiarpur. He remained indoor patient in Bharaj Nursing Home with effect from 13.11.2001 to 17.11.2001 and also underwent surgical operation costing Rs. 80,000/-. He filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Kangra at Dharamshala in the month of January, 2002 claiming the compensation f...

Baij Nath and ors. Vs. Gainda Mull Hem Raj

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. An application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (1987 Act for short) was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla vide a judgment passed by him on 18th March, 2005 whereby he determined the fair rent of the property in question at the rate of Rs. 20/- per Sq. foot. Since the property in question comprises an area of 442 Sq. feet, the fair rent determined on that basis was calculated at Rs. 8840/- per month which he decided was payable by the respondent to the petitioners from the date offiling of Section 4 petition i.e. 9th July, 2002. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Rent Controller under Section 24 of 1987 Act. The learned Appellate Authority (II), Shimla vide the impugned judgment dated 21st February, 2007 while allowing the appeal of the respondent and setting aside the judgment dated 18th March, 2005 passed by the learned Rent Controll...