Himachal Pradesh Court July 2009 Judgments

The State of H.P. Vs. Jarnail Singh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2010CriLJ192

Surinder Singh, J.1. The challenge has been made in this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in Sessions case No. 6/94 (93),on 17.6.1994, by the learned Sessions Judge under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Sh. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently argued that the findings of the learned trial court are based on conjecture and surmises, as the same are contradictory to the material on record, particularly with respect to the age of the prosecutrix, which otherwise stood proved by leading a cogent evidence by the prosecution and also that the learned trial court also wrongly concluded that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. It is further argued that if the case of the prosecution is seen and examined in the right perspective, there are reasons and grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction. 3. Shri Ajay Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent while supporting the impugned judgment strenuously argued that the version ...

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs. Everest Tube Ltd. and ors ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J.1. The appellant has assailed judgement decree dated 5.3.2005 passed by learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Suit No. 2S/ 1 of 2004 dismissing the suit of the appellant for recovery of Rs. 9,42,238/-.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,27,500/- with the appellant- Board on account of advance consumption deposit (ACD) when connection was sanctioned. Late Chiranji Lal Garg was the Managing partner of respondent No. 9 and through him respondent No. 9 stood surety for the payment of electricity bills by respondent No. 1 and executed a bond in the sum ofRs.3,40,000/-. Chiranji Lal is now dead and respondents No. 2, 4, 10, 11, 12 and 14 are legal representatives of Chiranji Lal. The respondents No. 2 and 4 are the Managing Director and Director of respondent No. 1. The respondents No. 10, 11, 12 and 14 are the partners of respondent No. 9. The respondent No. 6, a company acting through respondent No. 8 also stood su...

Malkiat Singh and anr. and Jasbir Singh Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2010CriLJ635

V.K. Ahuja , J.1. This judgment shall dispose of an appeal filed by the appellants Malkiat Singh and Vaishno Devi, through jail against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 13.4.2006. The second appeal has been filed by appellant Jasbir Singh through jail against the said judgment passed by the learned trial Court. All the appellants have assailed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court upon them, vide which the appellants were held guilty as under:Appellants Malkiat Singh and Vaishno Devi UNDER SECTION 120-B: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each. Appellant Jasbir Singh UNDER SECTION 302 I.P.C.: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, all the appellants were to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. They were further sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in ...

Apurav Chandel Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2010HP1

Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this Writ Petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of Clause 13.2.10 of the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education Regulations, relating to Re-evaluation framed by the respondent No. 2 H.P. Board of School Education in so far as the Regulations deny the benefit of the marks obtained in re-evaluation for the purpose of drawing up the merit list and for grant of scholarship/awards/freeship/medals etc. The said Regulation reads as follows: 13.2.10 (i) Whatever be the change in awards after re-evaluation the same shall be conveyed to the candidate. (ii) A candidate who applies for re-evaluation shall not be entitled to claim any retrospective benefit such as admission/promotion to any course/class, eligibility to sit for any entrance test, or the grant of Scholarship/award/freeship/medal etc. on the basis of declaration of the result of re-evaluation. Further that the declaration of the result of re-evaluation shall not be considered as time b...

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kamla Devi and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J.1. The appellant has come in appeal against the award dated 6.11.2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Shimla in Land Reference No. 16-S/4 of 1989 assessing market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 9500/- per biswa on the basis of sale deed Ex.PW-6/A along with other consequential amounts, interest as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act').2. The facts in brief, are that notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 3.8.1985 for acquiring land comprised in khasra Nos. 26/1, 36/1, 398/1 and 398/2 measuring 0-10, 1-10, 0-3 and 0-6 bighas respectively, Kitas 4, Chak Kaljar, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla for construction of Matiana - Moheri Road. The Collector announced the award on 19.1.1988 and awarded compensation Rs. 2831.95, solatium 30% Rs. 849.58 and 12% interest Rs. 821.27 total Rs. 4502.80. Kansha, Keharu, Smt. Mathi, Smt. Marchi and Smt. Besaru sons and daughters of Jhempa filed reference petition under Section 18 for deter...

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Vs. Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and Anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The aforesaid appeals are being disposed of by one judgement since they arise out of one judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1610 of 2007 decided on 25.11.2008.2. Kamlesh Kumar, respondent No. 2 in LPA No. 142 of 2008 filed CWP No. 1610/2007 challenging the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Motor Mechanic in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the High Court of Himachal Pradesh issued an advertisement on 7.4.2007 inviting applications for filling up the post of Motor Mechanic. The only two persons who appeared for the interview were Kamlesh Kumar-writ petitioner and Rakesh Kumar, the selected candidate. The selection of Rakesh Kumar was challenged by the petitioner Kamlesh Kumar on various grounds including the ground that the allocation of almost 50% marks for the viva voce/personal interview were too high and that the appointment should have been made only on the basis of the marks obtained by th...

Sudershan Doger Vs. Managing Director, H.P. Small Scale Industries Exp ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC400

Rajiv Sharma, J.1. The husband of the petitioner was working as General Manager with the respondent No. 1-Corporation. He retired on 31.5.1991. The retiral benefits though were initially released to the petitioner, but were withheld subsequently.2. Mr. N.D. Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner's husband was entitled to get retiral benefits on his retirement i.e. 31.5.1991. However, the respondent-Corporation has released retiral benefits on 10.6.1994 without payment of any interest. According to him, his client is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% on the retiral benefits.3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. Y. Paul, Advocate have strenuously argued that due to anonymous complaint i.e. Annexure-R/1 made on 3.6.1991, the retiral benefits were not released in 1991. Their further case is that when no substance was found in the complaint, the retiral benefits were released. According to them, in these circumstances, the petition...

Hari Dutt Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Chand, J.1. The petitioner had filed Original Application No. 864 of 1997 in the H.P. Administrative Tribunal which was abolished vide Notification dated 8th July, 2008. The cases of the erstwhile Tribunal were transferred to this Court in view of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008, on transfer, Original Application No. 864 of 1997 was registered as CWP(T) No. 4320 of 2008 in this Court.2. The petitioner has filed the present petition in which he has mainly prayed the following reliefs:1i) The respondent -Corporation may kindly be directed to count the service of the applicant rendered in Indian Navy (Ministry of Defence, Government of India) for the purpose of computing quantum of retrial benefits.ii) To count the past service rendered in Indian Navy (Ministry of Defence, Government of India) for the purpose of payment of gratuity in accordance with law.iii) That the respondent -Corporation may further...

Surinder Kumar and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Hp Pwd Central ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Sanjay Karol, J.1. The present appeals arise out of common impugned award as such are being heard and decided together.2. For the public purpose namely construction of Hamirpur bye- pass road land was acquired by the State Government. The notification dated 7.10.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 20.12.2002. The award No. 45 dated 19.3.2004 was passed by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. In terms of the award the Collector determined the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 15,000/- per marla for Barani Abbal and Barani Doam and Rs. 10,000/- per marla for Gair Mumkin category of land. The compensation amount being not acceptable, the claimants filed land reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the same.3. The Court below, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:1. Whether Collector Land Acquisition had inadequate...

Baba Pritam Shah Vs. Khushi Mohammad and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.8.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 180 of 1999 and Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1999 whereby he has partially accepted two appeals and modified the judgment passed by Sub Judge, Court No. 1, Una in Civil Suit No. 53 of 1990 decided on 25.10.1999.2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the land comprised in Khasra No. 888, 889, 882 min and 1814/907 measuring 22 kanals 14 marlas after consolidation of holdings new Khasra Nos. 844, 847, 848 measuring 23 kanals 4 marlas was in his occupation as non-occupancy tenant and he has become absolute owner by operation of law. The revenue entries showing the defendants in possession and occupation of the suit land are illegal, void, inope...