Himachal Pradesh Court May 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.
The Executive Engineer Vs. Jagdish Chand Gupta
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC158
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the objections filed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, against the award made by the Arbitrator Shri B.S. Parmar on 6.5.2002.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the work for the construction of 25.80 Mtrs. effective span bridge over Khanni Nallah was awarded to the respondent vide letter dated 20.2.1991. Time limit for completion of the work was one year for lump sum cost of Rs. 67.98 Lacs. The work was started by the respondent on 5.3.1991 and was to be completed by 5.3.1992, but it was completed by the respondent/contractor on 27.12.1992. It was further alleged by the objector that due to fault on the contractor, the work was not completed in time. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to payment of any final bill. The respondent applied for extension of time for completion of work vide his application dated 4.3.1993, conditional extens...
Ramesh Chand and anr. Vs. Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC176
R.B. Misra, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the present appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants (respondents before the learned Single Judge) against the order dated 10.7.2007 passed in C.W.P. No. 283 of 2006.2. The private respondents herein had preferred the above mentioned writ petition assailing the order dated 2.2.2006 of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Himachal Pradesh under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (in short called, 'Act 1971') in case No. 122/2004, whereby the revision petition of the appellants (respondents No. 2 and 3) before learned Single Judge, was accepted.3. It appears that at the instance of the appellant herein, the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Himachal Pradesh had exercised the powers of revision after a period of more than 17 years under Section 54 of the 'Act, 1971.' The learned Single Judge has allowed the CWP N...
Vijay Kumar and ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC203
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra, dated 17.6.1997, vide which he reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Court No. II, Kangra, dated 26.12.1996, vide which the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs was decreed for declaration and mandatory injunction.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction as against the respondents who were impleaded as defendants. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that they are owner in possession of the irrigated land as detailed in the plaint measuring 0-38-50 hectares and they have a right of irrigation through a water channel which passes on the middle line of Khasra Nos. 1229 and 1230 owned and possessed by the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that they have been using the kuhal water since long and have a right to use it in future also and ...
Surender Kumar and anr. Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC271
Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.8.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 5-N/7 of 2003 whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and each appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 and in default of payment of fine each appellant shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the intervening night on 17/18.8.2002 at about 3.50 a.m. the appellants/accused were found in exclusive and conscious possession of 30 Kgs. poppy husk and 90 Kgs. poppy seeds at a distance of about 2 kilometers from Khajurna Bridge near Nahan. It has been alleged that on 17.8.2002 at about 7.15 p.m. PW-10 Inspector Kishan Singh, Incharge CIA Nahan, PW-6 HC Lajja Ram,...
Shadi Ram and ors. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC350
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 29-S/13 of 1996 dated 9.6.1997.2. 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 suit in the Court of learned Senior Sub-Judge, Solan on 24.2.1990 for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that they had been coming in possession as owners of the suit land since the time of their ancestors and revenue entries to the contrary showing the land as Shamlat Deh was wrong, illegal and not affect their right, title or interest and subsequent mutation qua the suit land measuring 125 Bighas 19 Biswas situated in village Chhrol, Tehsil Kandaghat, now Tehsil Kasauli, in favour of Nagar Panchayat and in possession of Makbuja Bashindgaan Deh is wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction. They also as...
Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Smt. Suresh Kumari and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC116
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. The State has challenged the award made by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Reference Case No. 1 of 1993. The first part of the challenge is that application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) was entertained directly by the District Judge which was not in accordance with law and that it should have been made through the Land Acquisition Collector. The second ground of challenge is that the reference is barred by limitation. The precise ground taken therein is that the application has been filed by the claimants before the Additional District Judge on 26.3.1993, i.e. after a period of 1/1 1/2 years of the making of the award.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the State has placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat Through Deputy Collector, Modasa and Anr. : AIR2005SC3464 and Mahadeo Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. :...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Mastan Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC179
Surjit Singh, J.1. State is aggrieved by the judgment of Sessions Court, whereby the respondents, who alongwith two juvenile delinquents, named Randhir and Ranjeet, were booked for offences, under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, have been acquitted. The juvenile delinquents were sent up for trial to Juvenile Justice Court at Una. The present respondents were challaned in the Court of Illauqa Magistrate, who committed the case to Sessions Court.2. Stated in nutshell, prosecution story is as follows. Respondent Mastan Singh, who is a Construction Contractor, had purchased sand and stones etc. from PW-9 Hitesh Kumar for construction of a building of Mahila Mandal. A part of the price of the aforesaid material had been paid, but a sum of Rs. 2,000/- remained to be paid. The money was not paid despite repeated demands. Respondent Mastan Singh told PW-9 Hitesh Kumar that the money would be paid on ...
Pawan Kumar and Kamal Bhardwaj Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC280
Surjit Singh, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by two different persons, who have been convicted of offences, punishable under Sections 302 and 307, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, by the same judgment, i.e. judgment dated 20th October, 2005, of the Sessions Court.2. Appellants alongwith two other persons, named Manup alias Manu and Devender Kumar Chauhan, were tried together, in a case instituted by the police. Prosecution case, as it emerges from the evidence adduced during trial, may be summed up thus. On 6th February, 2004, around 8 p.m., PW-11 Sandeep Rana, accompanied by deceased Rohit, went to a liquor vend at Jogindernagar to find out if PW-12 Balwant, a cousin of...
Cit Vs. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corpn.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: [2010]186TAXMAN105(NULL)
Sanjay Karol, J, 1. In exercise of its power under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, has referred the following questions for our opinion:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessee's claim regarding interest due on sticky loans ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the discount of Rs. 10,050 pertaining to bonds issued upto 31-3-1976 and thus relating to assessment year 1976-77 was allowable in the assessment year 1977-78, the previous year in respect of which ended on 31-3-1977 ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner, on the ground that it was without jurisdiction ?2. The assessee, financial corporation, set up under the State Financial Corporations Act, filed...
New India Assurance Company Vs. Ranmay Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ354,2008(2)ShimLC343
Kuldip Singh, J.1. The insurer of truck HP-06-641 is in appeal against the award dated 26.9.2001 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan in MAC. Petition No. 18-S/2 of 1996, whereby an award of Rs. 3,18,500/- has been awarded in favour of claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5 and against respondent No. 10 Sher Singh, respondent No. 7 Bagat Ram and appellant who are owner, driver and insurer respectively of truck No. HP-06-641 with a direction that since truck HP-06-641 was insured with appellant at the time of accident, therefore, insurer shall indemnify the owner of the vehicle. The award amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of award, failing which interest at the rate of 12% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till realization shall be payable.2. The facts in brief are that claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5 on 23.5.1996 filed a claim petition, claiming Rs. 6,00,000/- compensation on account of death of Ram Bahadur, aged 20 years, on 26.2.1996, due t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »