Skip to content

Himachal Pradesh Court March 2008 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.

Mar 10 2008

Purewal and Associates Vs. Cit

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-10-2008

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(HP)570

Deepak Gupta, J.1. The following questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court:(i) Whether under facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the return filed beyond the time allowed under Section 139(1) for the assessment year 1988-89 as non est on the basis that Section 139(10) also applies to loss returns;.(ii) In case, the answer to the above question is in affirmative, whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in upholding the return as non est which return contains carried forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation and also depreciation or other benefits of the year under consideration claimed in that amount of loss returned.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was to submit the return for the assessment year 1988-89 on or before 31-7-1988. This return was actually filed on 1-2- 1989 wherein loss of Rs. 66,62,817 was shown. The assessing officer held that the return was non ...


Mar 07 2008

Mahant Bal Giri and anr. and Mangat Ram Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-07-2008

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2648,2008(1)ShimLC455

Surinder Singh, J.1. This judgment will dispose of both the appeals titled above, as these have arisen from the same judgment passed by the learned trial court in case No. 2-S/7 of 2004 decided on 12.5.2004.2. The challenge has been made by the appellants against their conviction and sentence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act), for allegedly possessing 1 Kg. 400 grams of Charas.3. Precisely, the facts of the case are that on 8.12.2003, Gurdayal Singh Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Solan was on routine traffic checking alongwith other police officials near Oachghat. He put a Nakka at Sultanpur road. At about 1.30 p.m. when he was checking the documents of a scooter of one Narinder Sharma (PW1), a white coloured Ambassador Car bearing registration No. HR-20-E-5373, which was being driven by Mangat Ram came from Oachghat side, it was stopped by the police. Mahant Balgiri appellant was found sitting in the front seat beside the d...


Mar 07 2008

Lobha Ram Alias Lobhu Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-07-2008

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3210

Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been directed against judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 28-3-2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu in Sessions Trial No. 67-05, vide which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the commission of offence, under Section 376 IPC, in default of payment of fine, the appellant is to undergo further imprisonment for three months. The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 452 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo imprisonment for two months. The appellant has also been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the commission of offence, under Section 506 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for one month. All the sent...


Mar 05 2008

Laiq Ram Vs. Bal Krishan

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-05-2008

Reported in: 2008(1)ShimLC471

Surjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record.2. Complaint was filed against the petitioner (accused) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the respondent (complainant) alleging that the former having borrowed a sum of rupees twelve lakhs from the latter, issued a cheque in his favour on 18.11.2002, which was drawn on State Bank of India, Sawra Branch and when the cheque was presented to the bankers, it was dishonoured on the ground that the account had already been closed. Learned Magistrate entertained the complaint and recorded the statement of the respondent (complainant), on oath. Besides making the statement, the respondent produced photostat copies of the cheque and the writing of the bank, whereby the cheque was returned on the ground that the account stood closed. Trial Court, on the basis of the aforesaid statement of the respondent (complainant) and the photostat copies of the cheque and bank memo, passed an order under Section 204 of the Code of Crim...


Mar 04 2008

State of H.P. Vs. Rajesh Kumar

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-04-2008

Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC397

Sanjay Karol, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 11th February, 2000 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Kangra in Criminal Case No. 214-II/93/92 titled as State of H.P. v. Rajesh Kumar, acquitting the accused of the charged offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 6th December, 1990 at about 6.30 p.m., S.S.B. officials traveling in a Government vehicle bearing No. HPK-5260 towards Nurpur. The said vehicle was being driven by accused Rajesh Kumar. Near village Lappiana, when the vehicle had just crossed the bridge and was negotiating a curve where the road was quite steep, a scooter bearing No. PIH-2665 came from the opposite side. Since the scooter was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, its rider could not control the same and consequently dashed into the truck due to which both rider and pillion rider received injuries. The officials of the S.S.B. brought the injured ...


Mar 03 2008

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

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-03-2008

Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC470

Rajiv Sharma, J.1. A challenge has been laid by way of this petition to the order dated 20.4.2000 passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in OA (M) No. 464/1995. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Patwari on 21.8.1987. His name was reflected at Sr. No. 164 in the seniority list of Patwaris as it stood on 30.4.1993 and the respondent No. 3 stood at Sr. No. 167. The petitioner had passed the departmental examination in February, 1994. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 16th May, 1994 promoted 7 Patwaris to the post of Kanungos including respondent No. 3, who according to the petitioner was junior to him. The petitioner approached the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 967 of 1994. The same was directed to be treated as representation by the learned Tribunal. The Divisional Commissioner considered the representation and rejected the same vide order dated 21.10.1994. The petitioner approached t...


Mar 01 2008

The Himachal Gram Vikas Udyog Sabha Vs. the State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-01-2008

Reported in: 2008(1)ShimLC497

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is a Regular Second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 16.1.2007, vide which he affirmed the findings of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2 Dharamshala, dated 21.9.2004, dismissing the suit of the appellant for permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a perpetual lease for 99 years was created in favour of the plaintiff by defendant No. 3 in regard to Plot No. 1 measuring 1000 Sq. Mtr. in the Industrial Area Estate, Kangra. The plaintiff was to establish a unit and a lease deed was executed in between the plaintiff and defendants on 23.4.1979 which was signed by defendant No. 2 on behalf of Governor of H.P. The plaintiff did not start the industrial unit inspite of several letters written to him. The lease deed was cancelled by defendant No. 2 and the possession w...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial