Himachal Pradesh Court September 2007 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Himachal Engg. Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(HP)185,[2008]301ITR116(HP)

Deepak Gupta, J.1. By this common judgment, we dispose of all the aforesaid income-tax references since a common question of law is involved therein.2. The main question which has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Tribunal reads as follows:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cost of assets shall not be reduced by the amount of subsidy received by the assessee from the Government for the purpose of working out depreciation under Section 32 r/w Section 43(1) of the IT Act, 19613. This question has been answered in favour of the assessee by the learned Tribunal. While making the reference the learned Tribunal has found that the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Jindal Bros. Rice Mills , had accepted the plea of the Revenue and had taken the view that the cost of assets must be reduced by the amount of subsidy for the purpose of working out the depreciation. On the other hand, majority of the High Cou...

State of H.P. Vs. Jai Dev and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1427

Sanjay Karol, J.1. The present appeal arises out of order of acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st class (II), Shimla, in Criminal Case No. 16/2 of 93, titled as State v. Jai Dev, acquitting the accused persons of an offence punishable under Section 379, IPC and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.2. The case of prosecution as set out is that on 29-12-1991, HC Anant Ram {P.W. 11) along with HC Balak Ram, Bhuri Ram and C. Bhagwan Dass were on Nakka duty, vide Rapat No. 13, on Shimla Bilaspur road, when at about 11.45 p.m. in the night they found accused Jai Dev and Kailash Chand loading scants of wood in vehicle No. DL-IL-1404 and other accused persons were throwing scants of wood from the upper side of the road. On seeing the police party the other accused persons fled away and Jai Dev and Kailash Chand were arrested on the spot. Two independent witnesses, namely, Ramesh Panth (P.W. 1) and Chet Ram (P.W. 4) were called to the spot and the possession of the vehicle as also the ti...

Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Through Its Manager and anr. Vs. State of H.P. a ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. A very thoughtful, a very well intentioned, well meaning and purposeful observation, couched in a directional manifestation, by this Court has not been only twisted out of context by the respondents but distorted beyond recognition, totally and patently contrary to the spirit in which it was made, defeating and frustrating the very purpose for which it had been issued. Let us notice relevant facts first. 2. In a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being CWP No. 92 of 2006, by an Educational Society with respect to a dispute arising out of the matters relating to the grant of affiliation by the H.P. Board of School Education (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for the sake of brevity) and condemning therein (in the Writ Petition) the deplorable state of affairs prevalent in the State of Himachal Pradesh with respect to the manner in which Schools are being run and granted affiliation by the Board, a learned Single Judge of this Cour...

Himanshu Mahajan Vs. Rashu Mahajan and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2008HP38,2007(3)ShimLC399

V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. In this revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has challenged an order passed on 11th September, 2006 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundernagar. Vide this order, the learned Court below rejected the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the petition filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 5 under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. By thus rejecting the aforesaid preliminary objection of the petitioner, the learned Court below held that it has the jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the aforesaid petition. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 25th November, 2003 according to Hindu rites as well as rituals at New Delhi and out of the wedlock Master ...

District and Sessions Judge Vs. Yoginder Sharma

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(1)ShimLC105

V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. The learned Sessions Judge, Shimla has sent this Reference to this Court with a request by him for a consideration by this Court of the issue as to whether the sentence inflicted upon the respondent-accused deserves to be enhanced or not. This Reference is contained in para (41) of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 41-S/10 of 2006 decided by him on 14th December, 2006. Para (41) for ready reference is reproduced herein below, which reads thus:So far as the sentence part is concerned, I am at pains to notice that the learned trial Magistrate has sentenced the accused/appellant to pay a mere fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In my considered opinion, the sentence imposed upon the accused/appellant by the learned trial Magistrate is grossly inadequate. Therefore, it is fair and in the interest of justice that a reference be made to the Hon'ble High Court with the request to consider the question of enha...

A.J. Infrastructures Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (2008)15VST342(NULL)

Sanjay Karol, J.1. Petitioners are auction purchasers and have assailed the order dated 22.12.2006 whereby their application for getting the auctioned property mutated in their name in the revenue record has been rejected and an entry of demand of arrears of sales tax dues of erstwhile owners has been entered into the revenue record. 2. Petitioner is a private limited company. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Himachal Pradesh, respondent No. 2 is Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur District at Nahan, respondent No. 3 is Tehsildar, Nahan, respondent No. 4 is Secretary (Excise and Taxation), Govt. of H.P., respondent No. 5 is Excise and Taxation Officer, Nahan and respondent No. 6 is State Bank of Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudicating the controversy in the present writ petition are as under:For various loans/advances received from respondent No. 6- Bank, M/s Eastman Rubber and M/s Eastman Tread (hereinafter referred to as borrower) mortgaged t...

Jagannath Vs. Om Prakash

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(I)ShimLC45

Sanjay Karol, J.1. This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 5th January, 1994 passed by District Judge in Civil Appeal No. 179 of 1982 titled as Om Prakash v. Jagan Nath, whereby the judgment and decree dated 23rd March, 1982 passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Dharamsala has been set aside.2. For the purpose of convenience, the appellant herein is referred to as the 'plaintiff' and the respondent is referred to as the 'defendant'.3. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:1. What is the effect of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reform Act, 1972 in the present suit?2. Whether Courts below has no jurisdiction to try the present suit, if so its effect?3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, if so its effects?4. Whether the Full Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble High Court Chunia v. Jindu has been wrongly and improperly applied to the present case, if so its effects?4. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the o...