Himachal Pradesh Court September 2009 Judgments

Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surjit Singh, J.1. By this judgment we are disposing of two appeals, titles and particulars of which are given hereinabove, as both of them arise out of the same judgment, i.e., judgment dated 30th November, 1995 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Kangra at Dharamshala. One appeal, i.e., Cr. Appeal No. 415 of 1995 has been filed by Ashok Kumar, who has been convicted of offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. The second appeal has been filed by the State for enhancement of sentence awarded to the said Ashok Kumar by the trial court.2. The case of the prosecution, as it emerges from the evidence on record, may be summed up thus. Injured PW-3, Ravinder Singh, accompanied by his friend PW-4, Rakesh Kumar, went to see off his two friends, named Gaurav and Navjeevan Mankotia on...

Smt. Kaushalya Devi Vs. Punjab Wakf Board and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Sanjay Karol, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents No. 1 & 2 are the contesting defendants and proforma respondents No. 3 to 7 are the proforma defendants having common interest with the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that her property comprising khata No. 64, khasra No. 124, khasra No. 471, measuring 0-30-34 HM, situated in Tikka Kuthera, Mauza Palaura, Tehsil Jawali, Distt. Kangra, H.P. as reflected in the mutation No. 88 in the name of Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. is against the facts, illegal, null and void. As a consequential relief plaintiff also prayed for a decree of injunction.3. The suit was opposed by the contesting defendants on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in view of the provisions of Section 85 of The Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)4. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, as alleged...

Suraj Industries Limited Vs. Ravi Dutt and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 16.5.2008, passed in CWP No. 215 of 2005 titled Ravi Dutt and Ors. v. State of H.P. and Ors.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a writ petition was filed by the petitioners Ravi Dutt and Mast Ram alleging that the petitioners are the citizens of India and they are aggrieved because of the actions of Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Respondents. M/s Suraj Industries Limited (present appellant) was impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition. It was alleged that the members of the petitioners' union were engaged in service by respondent No. 3 and they were in service since 1993-94 onwards. It was alleged that in an illegal and arbitrary way, respondent No. 3, by putting undue and uncalled for pressure upon the members of the petitioners' union, have terminated their services contrary to the provi...

G.P.i. Textiles Limited Vs. Sekhsaria Impex Ltd. and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Order 43 Rule 1(a), Code of Civil Procedure read with High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Appellate Side) Rules, 1997, against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.10.2005, vide which the plaint was returned to the appellant/Company in terms of Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,04,77,010/- alongwith interest against the defendants. It was alleged by the plaintiff/Company Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. that they have a Textile Division at Nalagarh and they were dealing with the defendants for the purchase of cotton for its Textile Division at Nalagarh. On 19.12.1998, the defendant's Company communicated the terms for the purchase of cotton on behalf of the plaintiff's Company on commission basis. Defendant No. 1 was to act as an agent of the plaintiff's Com...

L.A.C. and anr. Vs. Dot Ram and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of RFA Nos. 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321 of 2001 and RFA No. 45 of 2002 arising out of common award dated 18.9.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu in land reference petition Nos. 96 of 1998, 97 of 1998, 98 of 1998, 99 of 1998, 100 of 1998, 102 of 1998, 103 of 1998, 104 of 1998, 108 of 1998, 109 of 1998, 110 of 1998, 111 of 1998, 112 of 1998, 113 of 1998, 114 of 1998, 115 of 1998, 116 of 1998, 118 of 1998, 119 of 1998, 120 of 1998, 122 of 1998, 9 of 1999 and reference petition No. 105 of 1998 respectively.2. The facts in brief are that Himachal Pradesh Government for construction of N.H. 21, Kullu Bye-pass for public purpose issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act') for acquisition of land measuring 52-9-10 bighas situate in Village / Phati Kharahal , Tehsil and District Kullu. The notification under Sec...

Deepak Rohal and anr. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Sanjay Karol, J.1. Both the claimants and the beneficiary are aggrieved of the award dated 22.9.2008 passed by the District Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Land Reference petitions filed by the claimants. The land reference petitions were consolidated by the District Judge in terms of its order dated 14.6.2006 and the evidence recorded in Land Reference Petition No. 16-S/4 of 2008/2006 titled as Deepak Rohal and Anr. v. State of H.P. and Ors. was directed to be read as evidence in all the connected files and the parties were directed to lead evidence in the said reference petition.2. The common impugned award was passed by the Court below, hence, the present appeals filed by the H.P. Housing Board (beneficiary) as also the claimants have been heard and decided together.3. The details of the land reference petitions and the appeals arising there from is as under:Land Ref. Nos. Name of Parties RFAs No. 16-S/4 of 2008/2006 Deepak Rohal v. State of H.P. and Ors. 372/2008 & 373/2008 17-S/4 of 2008/2...

Gaurju Vs. Sh. Sham Singh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur dated 29.3.1996 whereby he has upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 137/1 of 1986 dated 11.11.1986.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Smt.Karju predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a suit against Amar Singh, Nain Singh and Smt.Gaurju Devi, widow of Nain Singh who has since expired and is represented by her legal representatives. In this suit, plaintiff Karju claimed herself to be sister of Pohlo Ram. It was alleged that Pohlo Ram was a non-occupancy tenant of the land measuring 10 biswas situated in Khata/Khatoni No. 57/90, Khasra No. 488 in village Bari Majherwan, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur under the predecessors of Amar Singh and Nain Singh. It was alleged that Pohlo had been tenant on the suit land for more than 40 years and became owner of ...

Sh. Krishan Lal and anr. Vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Sanjay Karol, J.1. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit inter alia praying for a relief of declaration that the compromise dated 24.2.2005, entered into between the defendants Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Thakru is an outcome of fraud, misrepresentation of facts and is thus illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs.2. Smt. Bhikmu filed a suit for declaration and possession on the allegation that the registered sale deed dated 2.12.1997 executed in favour of Sh. Ramesh Kumar with respect to the suit land was null and void. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court but however in an appeal filed by Smt. Bhikmu, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was reversed and the plaintiff's suit was decreed. Sh. Ramesh Kumar filed an appeal before this Court which was registered as RSA No. 357 of 2003. During the pendency of the appeal Smt. Bhikmu died and the appeal was allowed to be persued by her relative/legal representative Sh. Thakur Ram. In the said appeal, ...

Urmila and ors. Vs. H.P. Housing Board and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2010HP11

ORDERDeepak Gupta, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following questions of law:1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff could have been decreed for possession especially when no possession was delivered by the Land Acquisition Collector, as is required under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act?2. Whether a person can be dispossessed from his house without paying compensation as is required under the Land Acquisition Act.2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that admittedly the H.P. Housing Board approached the State for acquisition of land for setting up of a Housing Board Colony in Bilaspur. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquisition of the land Was issued on 27.4.1978. Award was announced on 16.7.1984. Most of the land was taken over except the land in possession of respondent No. l which he had purchased from respondent No. 2 measuring 0-5 bighas comprised in K...

Rajinder Singh Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surjit Singh, J. 1. Appellant Rajinder Singh has been convicted of offences, under Sections 302 and 392 IPC by the Sessions Court, vide judgment dated 27.12.2005. He is aggrieved by this judgment and has, therefore, filed the present appeal.2. Case of the prosecution, as per evidence adduced by the prosecution, is like this. On 13th September, 2004 around 9 in the morning, deceased Harjit Kaur alias Harpreet Kaur, left her house in New Delhi, on the pretext that she was going to Amritsar for taking bath in the holy Sarovar of Golden Temple. Instead of going to Amritsar, she came to Shimla accompanied by the appellant, who owned a taxi and drove it himself. The appellant and the deceased checked in Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Hotel Gulmarg, near Artrac Command Headquarters around 9 PM, on 13th September, 2004 itself. A form, prescribed by the hotel, was filled in, in which Delhi address of the deceased was mentioned. The form was signed by t...