Himachal Pradesh Court July 2008 Judgments

Varinder Kumar Vs. Onkar Singh and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC129

Sanjay Karol, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below. Appellant Varinder Kumar, as plaintiff filed a suit against Shri Onkar Singh, present respondent No. 1 as defendant No. 1 and Shri Rajinder Singh, present respondent No. 2 as defendant No. 2. A declaration was sought in the suit to the effect that vehicle bearing No. HPG-1546 is owned by the plaintiff and that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the same.2. It was the case of the plaintiff that the original owner Shri Jagdish Singh had entered into certain agreements with one Shri Rasail Singh and his two sons S/Shri Vijay Kumar and Vinod Kumar in terms of agreement dated 31.8.1981 (Ext. PW-9/A). It was also pleaded that the subsequent agreement between S/Shri Vijay Kumar and Vinod Kumar, sons of Shri Rasil Singh, selling the vehicle to defendant No. 1 Shri Onkar Singh in terms of agreement dated 13.4.1983 (Ext.PW-9/A/1), was bad in law. It is the further cas...

Shri Raj Kumar and anr. Vs. Shri Kashmir Singh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009ACJ745,2008(2)ShimLC476

Rajiv Sharma, J.1. A challenge has been laid by way of present F.A.O. to the award made by the MACT, Bilaspur on 24.2.2004 in MAC Petition No. 32 of 1999.2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this F.A.O. are that the present appellants had preferred claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the grant of compensation before the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur. It was in year 1998 when Shri Vikas Kumar son of Shri Raj Kumar appellant, who was a student of Government School met with an accident. Shri Vikas Kumar received injuries and he succumbed to his injuries. The respondent had resisted the claim petition. The learned MACT had framed the following issues:1. Whether the deceased Shri Vikas Kumar had died due to the rash and negligent driving of Shri Kuldeep Singh driver of truck No. HR-38-BG-6222, as alleged? OPE2. If issue No. 1 supra is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from which of the respondent...

Shiv Ram Vs. Vijay Ram and anr.,

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC472

Surinder Singh, J.1. In the instant petitions, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has raised a common question of law and facts hence taken up together for its decision.2. In brief the facts are; the petitioner herein, made a complaint to the Mining Department that the respondents were indulged in illegal mining by extracting the stones from his land and also from the Government land. On enquiry the Mining Officer found substance in the complaint, thus he being the authorized officer, filed three separate complaints against each of the accused-respondent, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, under Section 21(2) of the Mines & Mineral (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957. The trial Court issued the summons, which were not served but the bailable warrants were served for their presence on 21.12.2002. The accused-respondents did not put in appearance on 21.12.2002. However, the trial Court passed the following order in all the compla...

Munshi Ram Vs. Shyam Lal and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4605,2008(3)ShimLC110

ORDERSurinder Singh, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge vide his order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 21 of 2002, decided on 12-8-2003 has affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur dated 25-3-2002 in Criminal Case No. 75/2 of 2001 and the instant petition has been filed for quashing the orders passed by both the Courts below, on the ground that the complaint filed by the petitioner herein was wrongly dismissed by applying the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that Shyam Lal is the real brother of the present petitioner. It is alleged in the complaint filed before the learned trial Court that respondent No. 1 Shyam Lal fabricated a Will dated 18-6-1985 of his father Ram Dass in his favour in collusion with respondent Nos. 2 to 4 claiming the entire property to the exclusion of the petitioner. The petitioner had filed the suit before learned Sub-Judge challen...

S.K. Mahajan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC62

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 26.9.1995 passed by the respondents praying that penal interest levied be waived under Section 139(B) and Sections 215/217 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the amount be refunded in favour of the petitioner.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partner of the firm styled as M/S. S.K. Associates. The petitioner filed his return of income amounting to Rs. 1,02,230 for the assessment year 1988-89 with the Assessing Officer, Palampur. The petitioner has disclosed that he had income of Rs. 1,02,230 including 30% of share of profit in the firm M/S. S.K. Associates of which he was a partner. He filed the return of income in individual capacity as well as on behalf of the firm for the year 1988-89 simultaneously after the petitioner ascertained his share of income from th...

Mukesh Mahajan Vs. Cit and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26-9-1995 passed by the respondents praying that penal interest levied be waived under Section 139(8) and Section 215/217 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the amount be refunded in favour of the petitioner.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partner of the firm styled as M/s S.K. Associates. The petitioner filed his return of income amounting to Rs. 1,00,075 for the assessment year 1988-89 with the assessing officer, Palampur. The petitioner has disclosed that he had income of Rs. 1,00,075 including 50 per cent of share of profit in the firm M/s S.K. Associates of which he was a partner. He filed the return of income in individual capacity as well as on behalf of the firm for the year 1988-89 simultaneously after the petitioner ascertained his share of income fr...

Shamshad Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4658

Surinder Singh, J.1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of his conviction, passed by the learned trial Court under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, in short the 'Act' whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2, 00,000/- in default Of payment of fine, further to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, allegedly having found 4 Kgs Charas, in his Maruti Alto Car driven by him, which was also ordered to be confiscated to the State.Prosecution Case:2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 21.9.2004, the police party headed by the then H.C. Lal Chand (PW10) put a Naqa on the Mandi-Kullu National Highway at forest check post at 'Barindavani' near Mandi Town. Besides the said Head Constable, another HC Nanak Chand, Constables Khem Chand, Narain Singh and Forest Guard Lelin Sharma (PW7) and Chowkidar Rattan Chand were also present there.3. Around 12.30p.m., anew '...

State of Himachal Pradesh and anr. Vs. Jawala Dass Sharma

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC478

Sanjay Karol, J.1. Petitioners herein have assailed the order dated 24th June, 2002 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 243 of 2001, allowing the Original Application filed by Shri Jawala Dass Sharma, respondent herein.2. For the various acts of alleged misconduct, a preliminary inquiry was got conducted by the State. The respondent, who was working as a Range Officer was charge-sheeted on 5.9.1989 by the Conservator of Forests, Circle Shimla, with the following charges:1. Gross negligence in the performance of his official duties.2. Disobedience of orders and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant.3. Committing serious financial irregularities.3. The response dated 6.9.1989 filed by the respondent was considered and an inquiry was initiated and after due compliance with the procedure and principles of natural justice, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 11.11.1992 holding the res...

Gatinder Kumar and anr. Vs. Pushpa Devi and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC173

Sanjay Karol, J.1. Learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that only the following substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal:Whether the learned court (District Judge) erred in arriving at conclusion that the propounder has failed to prove due execution of the will in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act?2. The present respondents are the successor-in-interest of the original plaintiff Sh. Inder Dev (hereinafter Sh. Inder Dev is referred to as the 'plaintiff arid the present appellants are the defendants in the suit (hereinafter are referred to as the 'defendants').3. The plaintiff's suit, for declaration and injunction was to the effect that he is in possession and joint ownership of the suit land and the Will executed by his mother Smt. Kasturu is a result of mis-representation, undue influence, coercion and such be declared void. Notably, the defendants are the sons of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's suit was r...

Kewal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC180

R.B. Misra, J.1. None appears on behalf of respondent No. 4, despite notices at the initial stage as also the notice of actual date of hearing.2. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10th October, 2000, passed in OA No. 1044/HP/97, whereby the Original Application, above mentioned, preferred by the writ petitioner, was dismissed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (for short learned Tribunal).4. (i) In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to give background of the case. The petitioner was appointed on 24.5.1994 as substitute Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (for short 'EDDA'), on purely temporary, adhoc and stop-gap-arrangement on 24th May, 1994.(ii) It appears that respondents-authorities invited applications for selection to the regular post of 'EDDA'. The selection was to be made in consonance to Clause (2) indicated in Section IV of the Method of Recruitment reproduced as bel...