Himachal Pradesh Court August 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.
Smt. Sarswati Devi and ors. Vs. Smt. Bimla Rani and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC407
Sanjay Karol, J.1. The present appeal arises out of an Award dated 6.10.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra Division at Dharamshala, in MACP No. 53-B/II-02, titled as Smt. Bimla Rani v. Shri Dalip Singh and Ors. allowing the claimant's petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Smt. Bimla Rani, respondent No. 1 herein, filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 8 lacs, on account of death of her son Sh. Prithvi Pal Singh, aged 35 years, in an accident dated 16.4.2002 with jeep bearing No. HP-02-8595, driven by Shri Dalip Singh, original respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 herein and owned by Capt. Mehar Singh, original respondent No. 2 and original appellant herein, succeeded by his legal representatives, the present appellants. The vehicle being insured with National Insurance Company, original respondent No. 3 is respondent No. 2 herein.3. In the claim petition, it wa...
Juggal Kishore Sharma Vs. Patiala Distillers and Manufactures Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC448
Surinder Singh, J.1. This regular second appeal has been directed by the Plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, passed in C.A. No. 27-S/13 of 1995 whereby he accepted the appeal of the defendant-respondents, setting aside the findings of learned Sub Judge.2. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff appellant as an agent of the respondent is entitled to a decree for rendition of account against the respondents?I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case of both the Courts below.The admitted facts of the case are:(a) Respondent to be referred as the defendant Company hereinafter, is the duly licensed distillers and the manufacturer of the Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL);(b) The defendant, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, appointing him as their agent for procuring orders for sal...
Smt. Lata and anr. Vs. the State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC107
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 was owner of land bearing Khewat No. 161, Khatauni No. 222, Khasra Nos. 95 and 97, measuring 14-4-0 bighas situate in Mauza Raan/196, Pargana Saho, Tehsil and District Chamba. The petitioners have inherited this land after the death of Naresh Sehgal.2. The respondent-State had started the construction work of Sarahan-Raan road in the year 1989 which passed through the land of the petitioners in the year 1997. The Sarahan-Raan road was constructed under the State Budget (BASP). The petitioners have neither been paid any compensation nor their land has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.3. Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate, has strenuously argued that his clients could not be deprived of their land save in accordance with law. He then contended that the land of the petitioners has been utilized for the construction of r...
Smt. Bhekhalu Devi Vs. Smt. Ram Ditti and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC412
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu in an appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Sub Judge reversing the judgment and decree in favour of the appellant and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff who had challenged Ex.P-1 order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kullu, dated 5.5.1989 as affirmed by the Collector vide Ex.P-2 rejecting the claim of the appellant for trying the disputed question of partition as a title suit.2. The plaintiff approached the trial Court on the allegation that the suit land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 108/278, Khasra No. 3538, measuring 15-14 bighas, as entered in Jamabandi for the year 1986-87 of Phati and Kothi Mandalgarh, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P., is recorded in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiff (respondent herein) and the defendant (appellant herein). She ...
Aar Kay Traders Vs. Satish Electronics
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ShimLC44
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div), (I), Dharamsala dated 23.5.2007 whereby he has allowed the application filed by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, and set aside the ex-parte proceedings. While doing so, the learned trial Court has held that on a conjoint reading of Order 5 Rules 9 and 21 CPC, the Court can order service by registered post acknowledgement due only if the defendant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, instituted a suit on 22.2.2005 for recovery of Rs. 62,620 along with interest in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, who assigned this case to the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div) I, Kangra at Dharamsala. The respondent hereinafter referred to as the defendant, resides at Jawali which admittedly falls out...
Charan Dass Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: AIR2009HP1
ORDERDeepak Gupta, J.1. This regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Courts below were wrong in dismissing the suit of the appellants, without giving any findings on all the issues on merits and thus the jurisdiction has not been exercised in accordance with law ?2. Whether the plaint could be rejected under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, CPC even if the Court had no jurisdiction or the plaint was required to be returned for presentation before the Court having the jurisdiction?2. The brief facts, necessary for the decision of the case, are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD, (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) from making or releasing the compensation amount, solatium, etc. to the defendant Shri Jagat Ram in respect of 8 biswas of land being part of the acquired land. The plai...
Balak Ram Vs. Rasil Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ181
ORDERSurinder Singh, J.1. By means of this petition preferred under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala, dismissing his revision petition filed against the order dated 23.7.2003, passed against him by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, District Kangra in Case No. 7/IV/2003 under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in short the Code.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition can be stated thus. On 13.1.2003, the respondents Nos. l and 2 herein moved a complaint under Section 133 of the Code in alternative prayed action under Section 147 of the Code for issuing appropriate direction directing the petitioner herein to remove the obstruction caused by him in the exercise of right of user of public path, situated in Khasra No. 1041 in portion A to A and B to B of the tatima enclose...
Surinder Mohan Katwal Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ55,2008(2)ShimLC449
Surinder Singh, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 16-1-2006 passed by learned Special Judge, Hamirpur whereby he was directed to deposit the expenses of the witnesses to be summoned by him.2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner along with two others, was being tried for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the closer of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner and the other co-accused were examined by the learned special Judge under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The co-accused of the petitioner stated that they would not produce any evidence in defense whereas, the petitioner cited large number of witnesses and also wanted to examine and cross-examine the then Chief Minister, Director General of Police, Principal Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and many other officers/official witnesses. Aft...
Shri Shiv Charan Verma Vs. Shri Shiv Parshad
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ShimLC388
Rajiv Sharma, J.R.S.A. No. 314 of 1997:1. This regular second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 71-NL/13 of 1996 dated 31.10.1997.2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs for convenience sake) filed a civil suit for possession by way of redemption in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh. The appellants/ defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants for convenience sake) contested the suit. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statements filed by the defendants.3. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit on 23.9.1996. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1996 before the learned District Judge, Solan. The learned District Judge, Solan allowed the appeal on 31.10.1997. This regular second appeal has been filed against the j...
Kamal Kumar Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ36
Surinder Singh, J.1. The appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court Kangra at Dharamshala) under Section 376 read with Sections 511 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he was sentenced only for the major offence i.e. attempt to commit rape, to simple imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- if realized, to be paid as compensation to the victim. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.2. The appellant, felt aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, thus filed the instant appeal, through Jail on the grounds that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective and further that no injury marks were found on the person of the prosecutrix and there is nothing on record to conclude that the appellant committed the offence of rape.3. In short, the prosecution story on which the appellant wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »