Himachal Pradesh Court June 2009 Judgments

Suman Lata Kuthiala and ors. Vs. Piyare Lal and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. All the aforementioned 7 appeals and petition shall stand disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 17.4.1999, one Gurdial Kuthiala was going in a car bearing No. HP 03 2527 to Hoshiarpur. The said car was being driven by Shri Gurdial Kuthiala and his family members, namely, Suman Lata Kuthiala (wife of Gurdial Kuthiala), Monica Kuthiala and Abha Kuthiala (daughters of Gurdial Kuthiala) were also traveling therein. It was further alleged that when at 10.00 p.m., the car reached at a place 5 kms. from Garshankar Police Station, the same was hit by the truck bearing No. PCH 5370 due to its rash and negligent driving by original respondent No. 2 Madan Lal. The truck was owned by original respondent No. 1 Piyare Lal. All the occupants of the car including its driver/owner Shri Gurdial Kuthiala suffered injuries. Shri Gurdial Kuthiala and Abha Kuthiala succumbed to the injuries while his wife Suman Lata Kuthiala and daughter Mo...

Bharat Bhushan Vs. P.S. Raju

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This judgement shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 11 of 2006 and Civil Revision No. 51 of 2007. In both the revision petitions, petitioners are tenants, but respondent is common land-lord. Civil Revision No. 11 of 2006 has been filed against judgement, dated 21.12.2005, of Appellate Authority (III), Shimla in case No. 47-S/14 of 2005/03 affirming the order dated 11.12.2002 passed by Rent Controller (3), Shimla in case No. 65/2 of 1999. Civil Revision No. 51 of 2007 has been filed against judgement dated 3.4.2007 passed by Appellate Authority, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 141-S/14 of 2005 and in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 145-W/14 of 2005 dismissing the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 141-S/14 of 2005 and allowing Civil Misc. Appeal No. 145-S/14 of 2005 on the grounds of requirement of premises for reconstruction and re-building by the land-lord.Civil Revision No. 11 of 2006.2. The respondent- landlord had filed ejectment petition against the petitioner-tenant on the grounds...

Ghanshyam Vs. Chinta Devi and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surjit Singh, J.1. Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.11.2006 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby partly allowing the revision, filed by Chinta Devi and her minor children against the order dated 2.4.2005 of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, minor children, i.e. respondents Pooja Devi and Shivani, have been granted monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 600/-. 2. Facts, relevant for the disposal of the petition, may be stated thus. Respondents Chinta Devi and her minor children Pooja Devi and Shivani, filed a petition, under Section 125 Cr. P.C., seeking award of monthly maintenance allowance, against petitioner Ghanshyam, alleging that Chinta Devi was his legally wedded wife and Pooja Devi and Shivani were born out of their wedlock. 3. Petitioner took the plea that Chinta Devi was the wife of one Mohan Lal and respondents Pooja Devi and Shivani were born during subsistence of marriage of Chinta Devi with Mohan Lal. Learned trial Magistra...

Chaman Lal Vs. Krishan Chand Katoch

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 23.6. 1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1995 affirming the judgment, decree dated 4.11.1996 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu exercising the powers of Sub Judge 1st Class, Kullu in Civil Suit No. 113 of 1991.2. The facts, in brief, are that appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement dated 20.4.1990 regarding land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 328min/533min, Khasra Nos. 1404 and 1405 measuring 0-4-0 bigha, Phati Shamshi, Kothi Khokhan, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. It was pleaded that respondent on behalf of other co-owners and himself entered into an agreement with appellant on 20.4.1990 to sell the suit land for total sale consideration of Rs. 1500/-, out of which Rs. 1000/- were paid to respondent on 20.4.1990 and balance Rs. 500/- was to be paid to respondent at the time of registration of s...

State of H.P. and anr. Vs. Methi Devi and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. These are the regular first appeals filed by the appellant/State of H.P. under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award, dated 5.8.2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in Land Reference Nos. 39-S/4 of 1999, 40-S/4 of 1999, 41-S/4 of 1999, 42-S/4 of 1999, 43-S/4 of 1999, 44-S/4 of 1999 and 45-S/4 of 1999, vide which the trial court awarded enhance compensation in the following manner: Sl. Name of Amount Number Multiplier compensationNo. the case awarded of applied awardedper box boxes1. Mathi Devi Rs. 150/- 80 8 Rs. 96,0002. Gopal Rs. 150/- 54 8 Rs. 64,800Singh3. Bhagat Ram Rs. 150/- 60 8 Rs. 72,0004. Chander Rs. 150/- 200 8 Rs. 2,40,000Mohan5. Amolak Ram Rs. 150/- 150 8 Rs. 1,80,0006. Daulat Ram Rs. 150/- 250 8 Rs. 3,00,0007. Gian Singh Rs. 150/- 110 8 Rs. 1,32,000Justa2. Briefly stated the allegations made by the appellant are that the appellant/State acquired the land of the respondents for the construction of Breon Link Road....

Shiv Karan Vs. Uttam Chand and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, (here-in-after referred to as the learned Tribunal) on 10.1.2005, vide which the petition filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act as against the respondents for the grant of compensation was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant as petitioner/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act originally against respondents No. 1 and 2 and Insurance Company not named. It was alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner got loaded his bricks and cement from Kaloor to Mawalanghat for the construction of stairs and house and was traveling in the tractor alongwith the said goods. It was alleged that the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2. It was further alleged that at a place near...

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

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Sanjay Karol, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned award dated 24.10.2003 passed by the District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in Land Reference Petition No. 100 of 1999 titled as Bodi Devi v. L.A.C. and Ors., 2. Learned Counsel for the claimant has invited my attention to the judgment dated 16.12.2008 delivered by this Court in RFA No. 430/2004 titled as Union of India v. Damodar Dass and Ors. According to him, the impugned award dated 29.3.2003 arises out of the very same acquisition proceedings which was also subject-matter in the aforesaid case. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The claimant's land amongst other land owners, situate in village Averi, H.P. was acquired vide Notification dated 16.11.1994, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 21.9.1995. Award No. 1/1998 dated 19.3.1998 was passed by the Collector...

State of H.P. Vs. Khoob Ram and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC260

Surjit Singh, J.1. State has appealed against the judgment, dated 2nd January, 2004, whereby respondents Khoob Ram and Subash Bhalla, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 468, 471, 420, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted by the trial Magistrate. 2. Case of the prosecution, as per evidence adduced during trial, is like this. Respondent Khoob Ram was posted as Patwari in Mauza Sirigarh, Tehsil Ani, District Kullu, in the year 1966. Respondent Subash Bhalla is a resident of Chanigarh. This respondent No. 2 Subash Bhalla wanted to purchase land in Solan District of Himachal Pradesh. However, he is not an agriculturist, within the meaning of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and, therefore, cannot purchase any land in the State of Himachal Pradesh, unless he obtains permission from the Government. With a view to purchasing a big chunk of land to execute his plans, as a builder, in the area of Solan District, he e...

Ram Nath Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surinder Singh, J. 1. In criminal case No. 1-S/7 of 2000, the appellant was alleged to have contravened the provisions of Section 13 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for short 'the Act', thus he was charged-sheeted and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Act for allegedly taking illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from complainant Naresh Kalia (PW-1) as such sentenced to undergo the rigours imprisonment for a period of one ear and also to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-; In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigours imprisonment of two months, which has been challenged in this appeal. 2. The background of the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summed up thus. The appellant was posted as the Office Kanungo in Sub Tehsil Ram Shehar in Nalagarh Sub Division. In addition to it, he was deputed to function as the Field Kanungo of Circle No. II. Smt. Santo Devi, father's sister of the complainant (PW-1) had died about 5 years back, t...

Smt. Meenakshi Vs. Puran Chand

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the judgment passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court, Mandi, dated 26.2.2008, vide which the petition filed by the respondent as against the appellant under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for annulment of the marriage, was allowed by the Court. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of marriage was filed by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner as against the appellant, hereinafter referred to as non-applicant. The allegations made by the applicant were that the non-applicant i.e. his wife Smt. Meenakshi was impotent at the time of her marriage and continued to be so till the institution of the petition. The marriage was solemnized in between the parties on 1.7.2001 according to Hindu rites and it was alleged that it could not be consummated. The petit...