Himachal Pradesh Court June 2008 Judgments

Santosh Kumari and ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC470

Deepak Gupta, J.1. The appellants were the claimants before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. They are the widow, minor daughter and mother of deceased Rajnesh Kumar. They originally filed a petition under Section 163-A of the learned Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, claiming compensation under no fault liability. In the claim petition the income of the deceased was alleged to be more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. It would be pertinent to mention that deceased Rajnesh Kumar was the driver of the vehicle, which met with accident. The learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 4,34,000/- to the claimants. The Insurance-Company challenged this award before this Court by filing FAO (MVA) No. 235 of 1997. This appeal was allowed by this Court on the ground that the claim petition under Section 163-A was not maintainable since the income of the deceased was alleged to be more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. The relevant portion of...

Harjinder Kaur and ors. Vs. Sunita and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC156

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is directed against the order dated 8th May, 1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Sundernagar, whereby he dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as having abated.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs Smt. Harjinder Kaur, Smt. Ranjit Kaur, Sh. Kulwant Singh and Sh. Gurdit Singh filed a suit against Sh. Dwarka Nath Pathak, Shri Bhanu Kant Pathak and Shri Ravi Kant Pathak, for grant of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The plaintiffs alleged that they have half share in the suit property and the defendant No. 1 is the owner of the remaining half share. According to the plaintiffs, though no partition has taken place, the defendants have started digging holes in order to raise plantation over the best portion of the suit land. This suit was being c...

Piaro Devi Vs. Anant Ram and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: IV(2008)BC337,2008(3)ShimLC133

Deepak Gupta, J.1. An interesting question relating to the interpretation of Section 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) arises in this petition.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of damages for malicious prosecution against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants').3. The defendants contested the suit. Issues were framed on 15.9.2001 and the matter was listed for evidence of the plaintiff on 7.12.2001. His evidence was not present on the said date and on his request, the matter was adjourned to 22.2.2002. On this date also, the plaintiff did not produce the evidence. At the request of the plaintiff, the trial Court adjourned the suit of the plaintiff to 3.5.2002 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 100/-. On 3.5.2002 neither the plaintiff nor his Counsel were present. The trial Court passed the following order:Present: None for the plaintiff.Mr....

L.i.C. and ors. Vs. Om Prakash

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC121

R.B. Misra, J.1. The present letters patent appeal has been preferred against the order dated 21.5.2003, whereby, learned Single Judge has allowed Civil Writ Petition No. 41 of 1998 preferred by the respondent.2. By the impugned order dated 25.6.1996 challenged in the aforesaid writ petition, the service of the respondent herein was terminated in exercise of powers under Regulation 39(1)(f) of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (in short called 'Regulations') for the alleged charge of unauthorized absence of more than 90 days.3. In order to adjudicate the present appeal, it is necessary to give a back ground of the case. The respondent had joined as Assistant Administrative Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation (in short called 'Corporation') in the year 1992 and for alleged unauthorizedly absence from duty from 25.9.1995, a charge-sheet-cum-show-cause notice dated 14.2.1996 was served to the respondent on his permanent address shown in his service. By th...

Brij Lal Vs. H.P. Administrative Tribunal and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC319

Sanjay Karol, J.1. Petitioner joined as Constable in the Police Department, Himachal Pradesh on 21.4.1980. Having distinguished himself as sports person vide order dated 22.10.1984 (Annexure 'PA'), he was promoted to the post of Head Constable on officiating basis. The said order was issued by relaxing the general provisions by the Inspector General of Police, H.P. Shimla-1 in exercise of his powers under Rule 13.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. The petitioner was reverted back to the post of Constable on 17.5.1989 w.e.f. 6.4.1989 but, however, the said decision was reversed in terms of order dated 22.12.1989 treating the petitioner to hold the post of Head Constable w.e.f. 1.11.1984 for all intents and purposes including the period spent by him under Lower Class Course. The petitioner was held to be holding the post of Head Constable on regular basis.3. The petitioner was aggrieved of the fac...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shivalik Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (2009)222CTR(HP)299,2008(2)ShimLC362,[2010]186TAXMAN79(NULL)

Deepak Gupta, J.1. The following questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as the Act):1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding the poultry sheds and water lines for sheds as 'plant' for the purposes of depreciation allowance and investment allowance under the Income-tax Act?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing extra shift allowance on poultry sheds, fencing, water tanks and well?2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the hatchery business. The assessee claimed depreciation and investment allowance on poultry sheds by treating the same as 'plant'. The Assessing Officer only allowed depreciation treating the poultry shed as 'building' and not as 'plant'. Investment allowance was not allowed. The cl...

Cit Vs. Sona Ram Malik

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Sanjay Karol, J.1. The present appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,10,130 holding that the provisions of Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be invoked by the assessing officer.2. The respondent assessee filed his income-tax return on 11-9-1984 for the assessment year 1984-85 declaring an income of Rs. 25,444 which was accepted vide assessment order dt 14-3-1985, passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On 16-5-1986, during the search and seizure operation carried out under Section 132 of the Act, certain incriminating documents were found and seized which revealed that the assessee had not fully disclosed the true particulars of his income in the return for the year 1984-85 filed by him on 11-9-1984. In contemplation of action under Section 147 of the...

Jens Astrup Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC142

Surjit Singh, J.1. These two appeals, one by the State of Himachal Pradesh and the other by Mr. Jens Astrup, are directed against the same judgment, i.e. judgment dated 30.11.1996 of Sessions Court, Kullu, whereby Mr. Jens Astrup, who was tried for offences, under Section 20 of the Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 419 IPC, has been convicted for the later mentioned two offences and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 3000, in respect of offence, under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 1000, in respect of offence, under Section 419 IPC, but has been acquitted of the offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.2. Mr. Jens Astrup, hereinafter called accused, has appealed against his conviction and sentence for the aforesaid two offences, while the State has appealed against his acquittal, in r...

Managing Director, H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation and anr. Vs. ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC255

Kuldip Singh, J.1. The petitioners have filed this revision, for setting aside order dated 18.2.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (II), Dehra in Criminal Case No. 41-111/2001/98, titled as Food Inspector v. Parkash Chand, whereby Managing Director of H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Shimla has been summoned as accused under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short Act).2. The facts in brief are that Food Inspector purchased for analysis a sample of 600 grams rice superfine on 30.8.1996 from respondent No. 2, which was kept for sale to the general public, on payment of Rs. 4.55. The sample so purchased was put in three dry and clean polythene envelops in equal proportion. The signature of the vendor was obtained on each packet. One part of the sealed sample along with Form VII was sent to Public Analyst Kandaghat by Regd. Parcel in a sealed packet. The specimen impression of the seal which was used to seal the sample and packe...

Shri Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Smt. Sunita Chaudhary

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: II(2008)DMC670,2008(2)ShimLC197

Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is the husband's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Magistrate (sic), Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamsala, denying him decree of divorce by way of judicial separation as prayed for.2. The husband approached the Court on the allegations that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 2.11.1997 at village Bharmar, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, according to Hindu rites. The averments are that the petitioner is a Bachelor in Pharmacy and prior to his posting, he was working in Meridian Laboratory and remained posted there upto August 1997. Thereafter he changed jobs and worked at various places, the last such posting being at Khanna District in Punjab. At the time of filing of the petition, he was working in Gagret. In a nutshell, the averments are that the respondent deserted him and did not rejoin his company. He seeks a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground that the respondent has not made any effor...