Himachal Pradesh Court April 2009 Judgments

Smt. Bhodi Vs. Smt. Dalumbi and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC169

Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court declaring her to be the owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 142/1, measuring 6 Biswas, situated in village Pangal, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. and that the order dated 30.1.1986 Ex.P1 passed by the Director Consolidation under the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is illegal or not binding on her interest.2. The grievance made by the plaintiff was that in revision proceedings under Section 54 of the Act supra, the plaintiff-appellant was not served and as such, did not bind her interest nor could such order determine her rights. The learned trial Court on appraisal of the material on record, determined two important issues, namely, that she was not properly represented before the Director Consolidation and...

Sumitra Devi Vs. Hpseb and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ199HP

ORDERSanjay Karol, J. 1. The petitioner admittedly was engaged as daily waged Peon in May, 1993 with the respondent-Board. Since then she has been continuously working. In terms of the present petition the petitioner is seeking payment of bonus in accordance with the provisions of The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.2. The petition initially filed before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which was admitted on February 24, 1998 now stands transferred to this Court by virtue of the provision of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008 (No. 14 of 2008).3. Respondents in their reply have primarily taken two objections:(i) The dispute essentially is covered under The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hence reference to dispute under Section 10 of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is only available to the petitioner.(ii) That in any event the petitioner being daily rated workman is not covered within the mean...

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Mast Ram

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC309

Kuldip Singh, J.1. The acquittal of respondent for offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A IPC vide judgment dated 31.1.2002 passed in Cr. Case No. 208/2 of 1996/97 has been assailed by State by way of present appeal.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-2 Parmod Sood complainant made a statement Ex.PW-2/A and on that basis FIR No. 153/95 was registered on 6.6.1995 at Police Station, Sadar Shimla. The complainant in his statement has stated that on 6.6.1995 he was sitting out side his coal company namely Best Coal Company, Swati aged 10 years, Arushi aged 5 years daughters of his nephew were sitting with him. His nephew Raman and driver Des Raj were also standing there. The two girls stood up to go to their home at Lok Tara Estate, Kaithu. When the two girls were crossing the cart road, a bus bearing registration No. HP-07-0490 came from victory tunnel side in high speed and struck against Arushi who fell down. The driver side front tyre crushed Arushi and she started prof...

Shri Parmod Sood Vs. State of H.P. and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This arbitration appeal filed by the claimant (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) raises interesting questions of law. The undisputed facts are that the works pertaining to strengthening of Chandigarh-Mandi-Manali road NH- 21 in K.M. 105/0 to 127/0 was awarded by the respondent-State in favour of the Appellant-Contractor. The contract provided that in case the deviation in the work was beyond 30% the contractor would be entitled to claim payment for the works in excess of 30% of the awarded quantity at market rate. The agreement entered into between the parties also contained an arbitration clause. The contractor claimed that he had in respect of certain works been required to carry out work in excess of the prescribed deviation of 30% and therefore he was entitled to be paid for such works in excess of the stipulated deviation at the market rates. The Engineer in-charge recommended the case of the contractor to the Chief Engineer. However, the latter did not...

Sh. Raj Kumar Vs. Food Inspector

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surinder Singh, J.1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings against him in case No. 296-3 of 2006 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. II, Shimla, under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, 'for short the Act', allegedly for selling the adulterated 'Paneer' to the Food Inspector, which was kept for human consumption in the Hotel.2. In brief, the facts of the case can be stated thus. 'M/s Hotel Eve' is situated on the Mall Shimla. The said premises are used for 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. lodging and catering. Kamal Kumar, the real brother of the petitioner, was the Manager and was found conducting the business of the said Hotel by the Food Inspector at about 12.15 p.m. on 28.12.2005. The Food Inspector picked up the sample...

Smt. Kala Devi Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ434HP,2009(2)ShimLC172

Sanjay Karol, J.1. The petitioner was engaged as 'School Mother' with the respondent. It is her grievance that even though she was employed on temporary basis she was entitled to the wages payable to class-IV employees of the State.2. That the petitioner was engaged as 'School Mother' is not in dispute. Her selection is in compliance of all formalities, in accordance with the rules has also not been disputed by the respondents in the return. The respondents in their reply have also admitted that initially she was appointed at a fixed payment of Rs. 30/- per month which was later enhanced to Rs. 75/- and Rs. 110/- in the year 1983.3. Undisputedly the State of Himachal Pradesh has issued various circulars/notifications under the Minimum Wages Act fixing the wages payable to the workers employed by the State. The petitioner is admitted to have worked on part time basis for atleast 3 to 4 hours in a day. Even though the petitioner was working for the same time/duration as the regularly app...

Siri Ram Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surinder Singh, J. 1. The petitioner faced the trial before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate allegedly for selling adulterated 'Shakker' to the Food Inspector and he could not produce the licence for the sale of this food article kept in his shop as required under Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules framed there under. The learned trial court acquitted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1-A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?.Yes. short 'the Act', but however, convicted him under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act as he is proved to be running a shop without having the requisite licence under the Act for the sale of the food articles, as such he was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, which was challenged in appeal before the court of sessi...

State of H.P. Vs. Mangal Dass

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja , J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, dated 24.6.1994, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 376, 354 and 341 I.P.C.2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 14.6.1990 one 'K', name not mentioned, filed a written complaint before Incharge, Police Chowki, Anni. In the said complaint, the complainant had alleged that she was of the age of 15 and was studying in 6th class in Senior Secondary School. On 11.6.1990, she was accompanied by her friend named 'P' who was studying in the 8th class in the same school and when they were coming back from the school, the respondent followed them. The respondent asked the complainant and her friend to be his guests and they refused, but he forcibly snatched the school bag of 'P' and took the same to his house and thereafter, in the evening he left the same in the fields near...

Sood Steel Industrial (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioners of Central Excise and ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(166)LC167,2009(241)ELT186(NULL)

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This Excise Reference was admitted on the following questions of Law:1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in interpreting the Notification dated 28.2.1993 and the Deemed Credit Order dated 1.3.1994 and in denying the benefit, which was claimed by the applicant:2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in interpreting the provisions of Rule 57A and 57G as having bearing and relevance to the Deemed Credit Benefit to be allowed to the applicant?3) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in interpreting Chandigarh Central Excise Collectorate Trade Note No. 81/94 dated 25.7.1994 as over-riding the notice dated 28.2.1993 and Deemed Credit Order dated 1.3.1994?2. Though three questions as aforesaid have been framed, the basic question which arises in this petition is with regard to the interpretation of the Deemed Credit Order dated 1.3.1994 vis--vis., the exem...

Satya Devi and ors. Vs. Chuni Lal

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC353

Sanjay Karol, J. 1. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff and are referred to as such hereinafter.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is in lawful possession of suit land comprising Khewat No. 101, Khatauni No. 160, Khasra No. 199 measuring 0-3 Marias of Jamabandi 1966-67 Jhikli Dar, Mauza Khanyara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. Consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land was also prayed for.3. The said suit being RBTCS No. 217/99/98 titled as Chuni Lal v. Sunt. Satya Devi and Ors. was dismissed in terms of judgment and decree dated 28.9.2002 passed by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class (II), Dharamsala, District Kangra, H.P.4. The plaintiff assailed the same in terms of Civil Appeal No. 96-D/2002, titled as Chuni Lal v. Satya Devi and Ors. which stood decided in terms of judgment dated 14.1.2005, which is subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal.5. ...