Himachal Pradesh Court March 2009 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.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jai Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC36
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of the same accident. FAO 308 of 2000 has been preferred by the Insurance Company, contesting its liability to pay the awarded amount and FAO 448 of 2000 has been preferred by the claimants praying for enhancement.2. The facts which are common to both these appeals are that on 24.6.1999, deceased Maheshwar Singh, son of the claimants was traveling in Maruti Van No. HP 02-5889 after attending a marriage. This van was owned by Shri Ganga Ram, respondent No. 3 and was being driven by Deepak Sharma, respondent No. 4. At about 10 p.m. on that day, this vehicle met with an accident when it fell into a ravine about 200 feet deep. Maheshwar Singh suffered fatal injuries. The other occupants of the van were injured.3. The claimants who are the parents of the deceased prayed for compensation to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs for the death of their son, who at the relevant time, was aged about 15 year...
Suresh Chander Mohan Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC181
Sanjay Karol, J.1. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:(i) that the impugned Annexure A-3, dated 24.4.1996 may be quashed and set aside;(ii) that the respondent Board may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of UDC w.e.f. 30.3.1989 on the basis of seniority which has now been given to the applicant;(iii) that the respondent Board may be directed to give all the consequential benefits to the applicant after promoting him as UDC w.e.f. 30.3.1989 like seniority, arrears of salary etc. with interest.2. Petitioner served the Indian Army from 29.8.1970 upto 29.11.1978. Thereafter, he joined the service of the respondent-Board, as Lower Division Clerk on 30.6.1983. His pay scale was fixed at Rs. 400-600. In order to give benefits to the Ex-servicemen, who were employed with the State Government, the State of Himachal Pradesh framed the Rules known as 'Demobilized Armed Forces Personal (Reservation of Vacancies in H...
Vinod Walia Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC399
Sanjay Karol, J.1. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:(a) the respondents be directed not to re-fix his pay as per the observations made by the Audit but the pay already fixed vide Annexure P-IV should be allowed to stand;(b) no recovery of the alleged excess amount should be effected from the applicant. 2. In January, 1968, petitioner was appointed as Drawing Instructor in the Government Polytechnic, Hamirpur in the pay scale of Rs. 150-300. He was confirmed and subsequently in 1972 his basic pay was revised to Rs. 200-450 plus special pay of Rs. 50/-.3. The pay scales of the employees of the State of Himachal Pradesh were revised on the pattern of the employees of the State of Punjab and later on his pay scale was revised to Rs. 700-1200 plus special pay of Rs. 50/- on the pattern of the employees of the State of Punjab.4. The Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission selected the petitioner for the post of Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering) i...
Raj Kumar Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC435
Surjit Singh, J.1. Appellant Raj Kumar has appealed against the judgment dated 14th June, 2002, of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, whereby he has been convicted of offences, punishable under Sections 452, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence, under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in respect of offence, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for offence, under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences of substantive imprisonment have been made to run concurrently.2. Prosecution case, which led to the charging, trial and ultimate conviction and sentencing of the appellant, may be summed up thus. On 13th July, 2000, when injured Pramod Singh (PW-2) was asleep in the verandah of his house, around 10....
Rattan Chand Vs. Kanwar Ram Kripal and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ706,2009(1)ShimLC535
Surjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record. Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.1.2002 of the learned Additional C.J.M., Una whereby his complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which he filed against respondent Kanwar Ram Kripal, has been dismissed. The sole reason for the dismissal of the complaint, recorded by the learned trial Court Magistrate, is that the complaint was premature having been filed a day before the accrual of the cause of action. Respondent allegedly issued a cheque for Rs. 9500 in favour of the complainant. The cheque was dishonoured. On return of the cheque alongwith the necessary bank memo, complainant issued a notice to the respondent on 19th August, 1993. Complainant was supposed to have waited for 15 days before filing the complaint, as within that much time the respondent could have made the payment, as per requirement of law and escaped prosecution the alleged crimin...
Ram Chander Vs. H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC397
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. These petitions have been consolidated and disposed of by a common order preferred against the order of the Divisional Commissioner passed on an application under Order 41 Rule 19 moved in each of the cases praying for restoration of the appeals preferred by each of the petitioners which were dismissed in default on 17.11.2005.2. The primary reason urged for restoration in the application(s) was that the dismissal was the result of non-appearance of Counsel of the applicant(s) and no fault could be attributed to him/them. The order sheet shows that the case was called out thrice on 17.11.2005 but nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant(s) before the Divisional Commissioner. The application for restoration was accompanied by another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act where again the primary reason for non appearance was that the delay in moving application under Order 41 Rule 19 was that the Counsel had not communicated with the petitioner(s).3. W...
State of H.P. Vs. Madan Gopal
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC520
Sanjay Karol, J.1. The award passed by the Engineer Shri Y.R. Sharma, Arbitrator-cum-Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle HPPWD, Solan, in case titled as Madan Gopal Sharma v. Executive Engineer, pertaining to agreement No. 23 of 2000-2001 has been assailed by way of present objection petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act').2. Shri Madan Gopal Sharma (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor') has filed the objection petition being Arbitration Case No. 8/2005 titled as Madan Gopal v. State of H.P. and Anr. and the State of Himachal Pradesh (for short 'the State') has filed the objection petition being Arbitration Case No. 70/2004 titled as State of H.P. v. Madan Gopal. Both are being heard and disposed of together.3. In relation to execution of work, 'widening from existing 4 feet track to 7.45/8.95 mtrs. wide Totu Tara Devi road km. 0/0 to 4/105 (SH:-Cutting in earth work in Km. 0/270 to 0/495 including C/O R/Walls ...
Amar Nath and ors. Vs. Jagat Singh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: AIR2009HP63
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 27-12-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 38-S/13 of 1993 setting aside the judgment, decree dated 30-4-1993 passed by the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class (II), Rohru in case No. 84/1 of 1988/50-1 of 1991.2. The appellant No. l was plaintiff and appellants 2 to 4 were proforma defendants and respondents No. 1, 2 were defendants No. 1, 2 in the suit filed for permanent prohibitory injunction. The pleaded case of the appellant No. 1 is that he and appellants No. 2 to 4 had constructed 4 storeyed building on Khasra Nos. 415t 416 and 419, Chak Mohal, N.A.C. Rohru in the year 1960. In the year 1987, the Respondents No. 1, 2 purchased land comprised in khasra Nos. 393 and 394 from previous owners Salmoo etc. and in August, 1987 they constructed a 1 single storey house. The land comprised in I Khasra No. 393 adjoins to the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 416 and 419....
Ramesh Chand Chaudhary Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC68
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that a show-cause notices was issued to the petitioner on 2.2.1994. He was called upon to explain his position regarding alleged misconduct mentioned in the said notice. He submitted reply to the same on 7.2.1994. The disciplinary authority i.e. Special Secretary (R&R;) issued order, dated 15.2.1994. He administered warning to the petitioner and also ordered that the said warning may be placed on the ACR dossiers of the petitioner. However, on the basis of order dated 21.12.1994 the memorandum, dated 19.5.1995 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He submitted reply to the same on 22.5.1995. He submitted that the charges levelled against him were substantially the same as contained in show-cause notice, dated 2.2.1994. He made a request to withdraw the memorandum, dated 19.5.1995. He made another representation on 28.6.1...
Shri Kaushal Kumar Vs. H.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC10
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. The petitioner was removed from service on 16.8.1982. He preferred an appeal against the penalty of removal. The Chairman of the respondent-Corporation on 31.8.1982 on reconsideration of the appeal modified the order and the penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was imposed on 12.7.1984. He joined his duties on 16.7.1984. There was second case also against him. In this case also penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed on 5.7.1985. The respondents No. 3 to 6 were promoted to the post of superintendents Grade II vide communication dated 16.7.1991. The petitioner was not considered for promotion on the basis of Annexures-RA and RB respectively. The case of the respondents is that the case of the petitioner could not be considered for promotion on ad hoc basis due to imposition of penalties vide Annexures-RA and RB. The petitioner was not considered fit for his promotion owing to the penalties which remained oper...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »