Himachal Pradesh Court November 2009 Judgments

Mohammad Nazir Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surinder Singh, J.1. The above titled appeals are arising from the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in a Sessions trial decided on 25th September, 2007, whereby the appellants were sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of one Gafur Mohammad.2. The prosecution case, as emerges from the prosecution evidence can be summed up thus. Appellant Hasmat Bibi was the wife of Gafur Mohammad (deceased). They had four daughters, namely, Bal-Kisha Bibi (co-appellant) and Khurshida, PW-1 Mukhtiar Bibi and PW3 Bholan Bibi and a son PW5 Likayat Ali.3. Bal-Kisha Bibi was married to appellant Sardar Deen.4. PW5 Likayat Ali was married but was residing separately whereas unmarried daughters, namely, Bholan Bibi and PW1 Mukhtia Bibi at that time were residing with their parents.5. Appellant Hasmat Bibi used to take her daughter PW3 Bholan Bibi to an exorcist appellant Mohammad Nazir to which her deceased father us...

Sh. Ram Rattan and anr. Vs. Sh. Sunil Sood and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J.1. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') has filed the present revision petition under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment dated 15.5.2009 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 21-S/14 of 2008 whereby the appeal filed by the tenant has been dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller (III) Shimla dated 1.4.2008 has been upheld. The brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 and 2 are the landlords. Admittedly, they are the owners of the building known as 10 Sabzi Mandi, Shimla. They filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 seeking eviction of the tenants who are running a shop and have their residence in the building in question. The main grounds for seeking eviction are that the building known as 10, Sabzi Mandi, Shimla has become unsafe and unfit for human habitatio...

Janak Raj Bansal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(HP)167

Deepak Gupta, J.1. These appeals are being disposed of by a single judgment as the question of law involved in all the appeals is the same and reads as follows:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is right to hold the transport subsidy received as income not derived from an industrial undertaking thereby holding the same not to be entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act.2. It would be pertinent to mention that we are concerned with the assessment relating to the period 1st April, 2000 and therefore Section 80-IA as applicable at the relevant time. The relevant portion of the section reads as follows:80-IA. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings, etc., in certain cases. - (1) where the gross total income of an. assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking or a hotel or operation of a ship or developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facilit...

Rattan Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:A. In view of the fact that the assessee filed return of income Under Section 143(1) read with Section 44AF which authorizes the filing of return on lump-sum basis, wherein no expenses have been claimed under Section 28 to 43C of the Act, whether the Assessing Officer was legally justified in adding back the expenses by disallowing the same as paras 4 to 10 of the order?B. Once the Assessing Officer accepts the return of the assessee regarding businesses income and makes the observation that 'Books of accounts produced by the assessee have been examined with reference to the information called for. However, no discrepancy has been noted in the sale/purchase transactions. In view of the above trading results of the assessee are being accepted and no adverse inference is being drawn on this account.'; whether he is justified legally in adding back Rs. 1,00,000/- on the basis of presumption & as...

Shri Raj Mal Rajpoot Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. These appeals have been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge affirming the decree of the learned Sub Judge Ist Class-(3), Shimla, dismissing the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant.2. Two cases; Civil Suit No. 157/1 of 89, titled: Shri Rajmal Rajput v. Smt. Raj Kumari and Civil Suit No. 135/1 of 90, titled: Smt. Raj Kumari v. Shri Rajmal Rajput, were consolidated and tried together by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class-(3), Shimla. The appellant- plaintiff herein, prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant Smt. Raj Kumari, whereas in the other suit instituted by her she prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the plaintiff herein. The case pleaded by the plaintiff was that he is the owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 241/111, measuring 19 bighas, Khata No. 33, Khatauni No. 42, situated at Phagli, Shimla, and has constructed a resident...

Bholi @ Veena and anr. Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surinder Singh, J.1. The challenge in Cr. Appeal No. 392 of 2008, filed by the convicts, is to the judgment of conviction dated 18.6.2008, of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chamba, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each, whereas, the State has filed Cr. Appeal No. 640 of 2008, for seeking enhancement.2. Prosecution case, in brief, is as under:PW3 Shyam Lal, resident of Pathankot was running a spare parts shop at Damtal. Jyoti (deceased) was one of his daughters. She was married to appellant Rahul Gupta, the son of appellant Bholi @ Veena, in village 'Chudi', in the remote area of District Chamba in April, 2003. Appellant Rahul Gupta was running a shop at village Dharwala about 11/2 ...

Smt. Omi Thakur Vs. Shri R.S. Ahlawat, Colonel Officer

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This order shall dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for having wilfully disobeyed the judgment passed by this Court on 11.7.2008 in CWP No. 957 of 2003.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the judgment are that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as Clerk in CSD Canteen Palchan with effect from 5.5.1995. She had completed eight years of uninterrupted service. However, her services were disengaged by the respondents verbally on 28.10.2002. She served a legal notice upon the respondents and then she challenged her termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, who vide its order dated 18.11.2003 held that she had failed to make out a case for regularization of her services and her termination was not set aside, but the respondent/department was directed to allow her to work for three days in a month during visit of...

State of H.P. and anr. Vs. Manohar Lal Parmar

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the civil writ petition filed by the petitioners/State of H.P. for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, dated 17.3.2006, in O.A.(M) No. 95 of 2005.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent, hereinafter also referred to as the applicant, filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The case of the applicant was that he was appointed as an Excise and Taxation Inspector on 29.12.1970. He joined as such at Mandi on 4.1.1971. The applicant alleged that as per Rule 14 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 1963, he was required to pass the departmental examination within three years of his appointment. It was alleged that the respondent/State had neither framed the Departmental Examination Rules, nor conducted any departmental examination of its own for a period of 3 years since his joining. This led to the denial of...

Rangeel Singh and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surinder Singh, J.1. The appellants were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, for forming an unlawful assembly thereby using deadly weapons in prosecution of the common object and causing murder of Prem Dass, thus, sentenced each of them, under different sections as under:Under Section 302read with Section 149 IPCLife Imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- each; indefault of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2years each.UnderSection 147IPCRigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine ofRs.1000/- each; in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for afurther period of two month each.Under Section 148IPCRigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine ofRs.1000/- each; in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for afurther period of two month each.UnderSection323read with Section 149 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine ofRs.1000/- each; in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for afurther period of two month each.Under...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Dhani Ram and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J.1. All the appeals arise out of one award being award No. 1 of 1998 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of land for different categories of lands by the said award:Sr. Classification of Area Rate per Rate perNo. land biswa bigha1. Bathal Doem 37-7 5075-00 1,01,5002. Gair Mumkin 8-14 5075-00 1,01,500(Awadi)3. Bathal Soem 711-11 2625-00 52,5004. Bathal Chaharam 460-10 1575-00 31,5005. Banjar Kadim 25-5 1575-00 31,5006. Gair Mumkin 16-9 1575-00 31,5002. The claimants who were not satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector filed Land Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-in-after referred to as the Act). The District Judge awarded compensation for different categories of land from Rs. 52,000/- to Rs. 60,000/-. The District Judge has passed separate awards. However, since the award of the Land Acquisition Collector was one, these appeals can be disposed of by a co...