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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Winsome Dyeing and Processing Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(HP)599,2008(2)ShimLC359
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Counsel for the appellant. Heard Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, for the respondent.2. The present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) has been preferred against the order dated 29th October, 1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short ITAT) in ITA No. 999/Chandi/92.3. It appears the assessee filed return for the assessment year 1989-90 which was assessed on 24.8.1999 by the Income Tax Officer thereby assessing interest on short term deposits received by the assessee as income from other sources and assessed the assessment under Section 56 of the Act. As such the interest of Rs. 3,09,586/- received during the period was assessed to tax.4. Assessee had claimed that no business activity was being done by him and only construction work and installation of machinery was done during the assessment year in question and all the expenses incurred on it has been capitalize...
Suresh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC145
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. The present petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of the parties.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 3377/2007 seeking following reliefs:(a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to allow this application and order or direct respondent No. 1 to remove and correct the repugnant, arbitrary, invalid and unconstitutional provisions of the impugned Rules as aforesaid in para 6 above; OR in the alternative declare these provisions void;(b) Order or direct respondent No, 1 that the impugned provisions of the rules declared void, be not acted upon while considering the instant promotion of the applicant;(c) Order or direct respondent No. 1 to consider the applicant for promotion along with other eligible incumbents against one of the vacant posts of Principals (School Cadre) which are available in the responde...
Dola Ram Vs. H.P. Khadi Village Industries Board and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ87HP
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. A challenge has been laid by the petitioner to the award made by the Presiding Judge, Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No. 135/2004 dated May 22, 2007 read with order dated October 1, 2007.2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') had approached the appropriate authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the redressal of his grievances. The State Government has made reference to the Labour Court, as a sequel to the reference made to the Labour Court the workman has filed statement of claim. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') filed a detailed reply to the statement of claim. The workman had also filed detailed rejoinder to the reply filed by the employer. The Labour Court on May 22, 2007 has passed the following award:Today the case is fixed for the petitioner evidence but neither the petitioner n...
State of H.P. Vs. Bhola Alias Paras Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-27-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3567
Surinder Singh, J.1. Respondents were tried and acquitted, by the learned Sessions Judge, for allegedly committing the murder of Fandi Ram, in furtherance of their common intention, punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Their acquittal has been assailed by the State in the appeal being wrong and illegal.Prosecution Story2. In brief, the prosecution story as emerges from the evidence on record is Prehalad Chand (PW 10) was a Panchayat Pradhan and he was also running a shop of grocery items in his village Boh. Fandi Ram deceased owed Rs. 500/- to Prehalad Chand on account of some purchases of grocery items, made on credit. Respondent Bhola alias Paras Ram, son of Prehalad Chand, used to help him in his shop and agriculture pursuits. It is alleged that on 14-2-1992, Bhola carried a bottle of liquor and went to the house of deceased at 8 a.m. to realize the amount of Rs. 500/- due to his father. Fandi Ram (deceased) told him that he would make the paym...
Executive Engineer and anr. Vs. H.K. Sareen and J.L. Nayyar
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC113
Surjit Singh, J.1. We are disposing of two appeals by a common judgment, i.e. Appeal No. 99 of 1996 and 102 of 1996, both titled Executive Engineer and Anr. v. H.K. Sareen and J.L. Nayyar, because common questions of law and facts have been raised therein. This judgment shall be placed on the record of FAO No. 99 of 1996 and its authenticated copy on the record of Appeal No. 102 of 1996.2. First, the factual matrix required to be noticed for the disposal of the two appeals maybe stated. Executive Engineer of Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur, which is a registered society, invited tender for execution of two works. Respondent M/s H.K. Sareen and J.L. Nayyar was one of the tenderers. His tenders in respect of both the works were accepted. Two agreements, one bearing No. 11 and the other No. 12 were executed between the Executive Engineer, appellant herein in both the appeals, and respondent M/s H.K. Sareen. It was agreed that the work would commence on a particular specified date a...
VipIn Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC506
R.B. Misra, J.1. In the present writ petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prayer has been made to quash the impugned order dated 6th January, 2000 passed in O.A. No. 1800 of 1999, whereby, the petitioner's claim for selection to the post of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service as a scheduled tribe candidate was declined.2. It appears that in reference to an advertisement of February, 1998 for selection of some posts under the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services the petitioner applied as a scheduled tribe candidate on the strength of a certificate issued to him from district Bilaspur, and he was recommended by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission for one of the posts, but when appointment letter was not issued, the petitioner preferred O.A. No. 1800 of 1999 before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal.3. In view of the directions of learned tribunal, Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur was to inquire into the matter and to give a fac...
Jorg Jagoda Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC199
Surjit Singh, J.1. Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court, whereby he has been convicted of Offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac; in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. So, he has preferred the present appeal.2. Case of the prosecution is as follows. On 28.10.2005, a police party headed by PW-4 SI Lal Singh, left Police Station, Manali at 5.30 A.M., after making an entry in the Daily Diary, copy Ext.PW1/A. At Naggar two more police officials, named PW-1 Constable Chet Ram and HC Parkash Chand joined the party. On 29.10.2005, the police party was divided into two. One party, comprising of PW-4 SI Lal Singh, PW-1 Constable Chet Ram and HC Parkash Chand left towards Chanderkheni, to detect crime relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Around 4 P.M.,...
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Yoginder Sharma
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC258
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the revision petition whose cognizance was taken by the Court on its own motion.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla by the respondent against the judgment of the Court of learned JMIC, Court No. III, Shimla, vide which the respondent was held guilty under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and was sentenced to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 500/- each. The learned Sessions Judge decided the said appeal filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. vide his judgment, dated 14.12.7006, and while disposing of the appeal, he observed that since the sentence imposed by the learned trial Magistrate against the respondent is grossly inadequate, a reference may be made to the High Court to consider the question of enhancing the sentence.3. The said reference received by this Court was registered as Criminal Revision 149 of 2006 and Mr. Justice V.K. Gupta, the then Hon'ble Chief Just...
Baldev Singh Vs. Raj Kumari
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC163
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. A petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent for the maintenance as against the petitioner before the learned trial Court. In reply, the respondent denied the factum of marriage.During the pendency of the petition, a petition under Section 125(1) Cr.PC. was filed by the respondent for grant of interim maintenance. Learned trial Court after taking reply from the petitioner and hearing the parties, dismissed the petition for grant of interim maintenance mainly by observing that the present petitioner has denied that the applicant was his legally wedded wife. C5n revision, those findings were set aside by the learned Sessions Judge who granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- RM. in favour of Mrs. Raj Kumari. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are no spe...
Roop Ram and ors. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC165
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.In the present writ petition, preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made seeking directions to the respondents to deposit the entire amount of compensation in pursuance to the award dated 20th July, 2005 along with up to date interest.2. It appears that a Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 1st November, 1997, was got published in the State Rajpatra on 20th December, 1997 and subsequent notification under Section 6 of the 'Act' was issued on 16th January, 1999 for acquiring the land of 2-17 bighas and 0-10-10 biswansi pertaining to the petitioners. An award of amounting Rs. 3,82,543/- was passed on 20th July, 2005 by the Land Acquisition Collector for the acquired area of 5-16 bighas out of wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »