Himachal Pradesh Court July 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.
Dhianu Vs. Thunia
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC374
Kuldip Singh, J.1. The defendant has come in appeal against judgment, decree dated 28.2.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Una in Civil Appeal No. 74/97 RBT 90/04/1997 partly allowing the appeal by holding that Will Ext.PW-2/A in favour of Thunia and Will Ext. DW-3/A in favour of Dhianu are wrong and illegal. The estate of Sihnu testator shall devolve as per natural succession. The respondent/ plaintiff has filed the cross objections.2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent Thunia filed suit for declaration that he has succeeded to the entire estate of Sihnu and is owner in possession of the suit land more specifically detailed in the judgment of the trial Court, on the basis of Will dated 10.8.1990 Ext. PW-2/A, the entries in the name of appellant/defendant Dhianu vide mutation No. 699 dated 23.5.1991 are wrong, fictitious, illegal and not binding on the rights of the respondent/plaintiff.3. The appellant/defendant contested the suit and has pleade...
Bharat Bhushan and anr., Vs. Parvatiya GramIn Bank and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC455
Deepak Gupta, J.1. These five writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as they involve similar questions of fact and law.2. All the petitioners are employees of the Parvatiya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). According to the petitioners the respondent-Bank has not properly applied the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit' while making promotions to the posts of Officers Scale-I and Scale-II. The Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), were published in the gazette on 29th July, 1998. In the present cases, we are concerned with promotions to the posts of officers Scale-I and Scale-II which are covered under 3rd Schedule framed under Rule 6, which provides the procedure to be followed for filling-in the posts.3. Rule 6 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, reads as follows:(6) Filling up of vacancies: All vacancies determined under Rule 5 by the Board shall be fi...
Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC491
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got mar...
Shiv Lal Thakur and ors. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC33
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition against the show-cause-notice (Annexure-PK) issued to them by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Respondent No. 2) and the consequential order (Annexure-PV) removing them from the Board of Directors of the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank (Respondent No. 4). The petitioners have also prayed for consequential relief flowing from the quashing of these orders.2. It is undisputed before me that the petitioners are the Directors of respondent No. 4, H.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited, constituted, incorporated and formed under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Show-cause-notice (Annexure-PK) dated 5th February, 2008 was issued to the petitioners by the Registrar, respondent No. 2, on various grounds set out therein. The basis of the notice was the two audit reports for the financial years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. Statutory inspectio...
New Plaza Restaurant Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Reported in: [2009]309ITR259(HP),[2009]183TAXMAN33(NULL)
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,74,387 as made by the learned Income-tax Officer as good though the same has been made without any basis and without any material on record to substantiate the same ?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the Revenue solely on the ground that the figures of gross profit as returned in the instant year and the preceding years was not tendered before the income-tax authorities, and without going into other merits of the case ?2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) runs the business of a restaurant under the name and style of New Plaza Restaurant, Middle Bazaar, Shimla. For the assessment year 1993-94, the assessee filed a return showing an income of Rs. 24,350. This return was filed on the basis of the books of account. ...
Dharam Singh Kapoor and ors. Vs. Om Parkash and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC370
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in a suit instituted by plaintiff Sarfa Ram granting him relief in the nature of a declaratory decree declaring him to be the owner of the suit land and further restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession permanently.2. The plaintiff had approached the Court on the allegations that he had four brothers. Namely; Durga, Saily, Bhikha, defendants No. 1 to 3 and Paras Ram, since deceased, represented by defendants No. 4 to 8. According to the allegations made by him all of them jointly owned and possessed the suit land which was purchased by him and his brothers vide registered sale deed dated 18.9.1965 from Pune Ram, Atma Ram, Kirpa Ram Krishan, Jai Chand for a consideration of 15,000/ - rupees and mutation No. 1164 was attested in their favour. This mutation was lateron re...
Himachal Pradesh University Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Ramesh Chadha
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC502
Deepak Gupta, J.1. The short question which arises in this writ petition is whether the long continuous ad-hoc service rendered by the respondent/ employee should be counted towards her qualifying service in terms of Rule 13 of the CCS. (Pension) Rules.2. The brief facts necessary for decision of the case are that the respondent was initially appointed as Junior Lecturer in English in the H.P. University vide order dated 24.1.1977 issued by the Registrar at a fixed salary of Rs. 500/- P.M. purely on temporary basis. Thereafter, the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 7.9.1977 considered the case of the respondent alongwith others and it was decided to give them fixed salary of Rs. 700/- P.M. by treating them as Evaluators. At that time, the respondent was only a post-graduate. Thereafter, she did her M. Phil, and the Executive Council of the University vide resolution dated 1.7.1980 decided to grant regular scale of Rs. 700-1300 to the respondent with effect from...
Aggarwal and Company Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC419
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 24.9.2001.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff, a contractor, had entered into an agreement with the defendant for the execution of the work relating to augmentation of the Urban Water Supply Scheme to Nahan, which was numbered as 45 of 1993-94. It was further alleged by the appellant that since a dispute arose in between the parties, the matter was referred to arbitration of S.E. (Arbitration), HPPWD, Solan, who entered into a reference on 20.8.1997 and passed the award on 13.8.1999, which was sent to the Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 to be made the rule of the Court. It was alleged that since the proceedings were to be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award was not required to be made t...
Leela Sood and ors. Vs. Manohar Lal
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC498
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This revision petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 61-S/13(B) of 2006.2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-landlord, hereinafter referred to as the landlord for convenience sake, has filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the petitioners-tenants, hereinafter referred to as the tenants for convenience sake, in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Court No. 3, Shimla.3. The landlord has sought eviction of tenants on the ground that the premises were bona fidely required by him for reconstruction of the entire building, which rebuilding could not be carried out unless the tenants vacate the premises in question. He wants to reconstruct the building on modern lines. He has got a plan sanctioned from the Municipal ...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. Sudhir Rana and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ735,2008(2)ShimLC439
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal and cross-objections are directed against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. dated 20.9.2003 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) has been partly allowed and compensation of Rs. 1,14,000/- has been awarded. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has filed the present appeal praying for enhancement of compensation. Respondent No. 1, who is owner-cum-driver of the vehicle involved in the accident has filed the cross-objections in which the award has been challenged on two grounds, firstly, that the findings of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 is illegal and secondly that the compensation awarded is highly excessive.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned Motor Acciden...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »