Himachal Pradesh Court September 2009 Judgments

Himachal Pradesh B.Ed. College Welfare Association and Ms. Ritika and ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC482

Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. CWP No. 2495/2009 has been filed by the Himachal Pradesh B.Ed. Colleges Welfare Association seeking quashing of notification dated 13.7.2009 and also for quashing the imposition of condition of 50% marks and CWP No. 2781/2009 has been filed on behalf of the students' community assailing the imposition of condition of 50% marks in qualifying examination.3. The respondent-University has issued prospectus/brochure for admission to B.Ed. course in Department of Education and Colleges of Education in Himachal Pradesh for the academic session 2009-2010. Para 2 (d) of the prospectus mentions that respondent No. 3 has approved total 100 seats, out of which 50 seats in Non-Medical Stream, 30 in Medical Stream, 15 in Arts Stream and 5 in Commerce Stream, which are to be filled up as per 100 point roster. This dis...

Dheeraj Verma and anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surinder Singh, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, passed in S.T. No. 55 of 2003 on 30.12.05 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, allegedly for causing two murders one of Smt. Kamini Verma @ Doli and another of her maternal uncle Rakesh Kumar on 28.7.2003, by gun shots by appellant Dheeraj Verma who was accompanied by his brother Deepak Verma. The appellants were sentenced as follows:Under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25, 000/- each; in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 years each.Under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC Simple Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- each; in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a further period of one month each.Under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years each. Whether reporters of the local...

Smt. Simmi Karol Vs. R.K. Madan and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC441

Sanjay Karol, J.1. Petitioner herein is the judgment-debtor and has filed the present petition for review of the judgment dated 23.4.2008 passed by this Court in RSA No. 450 of 2007, titled as Simmi Karol v. R.K. Madan and Anr. Petition is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure being CMP (M) No. 1168 of 2008, seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petition. The delay is of 187 days. On 8.1.2009 notice was issued to the respondents on the application. The decree-holders have opposed the application.2. The petitioner herein is referred to as defendant-licensee and the respondents herein are referred to as plaintiffs-licensors. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment?3. In terms of licence deed dated 30.6.2002 entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant, the plaintiffs' premises situated on The Mall, Shimla was given on licence @ Rs. 40,000/- per month with effe...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kshitij Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law holding that capital gains tax is not chargeable on the transfer of all assets and liabilities of the company as a result of the complete change of management and 100% change of the shareholding of the company and it does not amount to succession.ii) Whether the sale of 100% share-holding of the company to the new management would not constitute 'transfer' as envisaged in Section 2(47)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and would not thus attract the Capital Gains Tax.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee M/s. Hotel Kshitij is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of running of a hotel at Shimla. The company was a closely held company and all the shares were held by one family. An agreement was entered into by the erstwhile share-holders and management of the company on 14.3.1...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. H.P State Forest Corporation Ltd.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: [2010]321ITR54(HP)

Deepak Gupta, J.1. Both the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the same order and have been admitted on following identical questions of law which read as follows:i) Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the directions given in the order dated 2.9.2003 to the effect that 'the income assessed by the A.O. should not be less than the income returned', was an apparent mistake and could be rectified through a misc. application.ii) Whether the ITAT was right in issuing a fresh direction to the effect that 'the assessed income should not be more than Rs. 1.4 crore, for the A.Y. 1993-94, while completing the assessment' as it is totally against the law, particularly when the direction has been issued in a misc. application even though there was no such point in issue during the original appellate proceedings.iii) Whether the ITAT was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to reassesss the income of the assessee which should...

Balkar Singh Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surjit Singh, J.1. Appellant Balkar Singh has appealed against the judgment, dated 19th November, 2005, whereby he has been convicted of offences, under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for offence, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, for offence, under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Prosecution case, as per evidence on record, may be stated thus. On 29th June, 2004, prosecutrix, examined as PW-1, went alongwith her younger sister Rajjo Devi (PW-6) to her father's land, situated at a distance of whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment half a kilometer from the village, to graze the pair of bullocks. Around 4 p.m., appellant, whose field is adjacent to the land of the father of the prosecutrix and was present there, called the prosecutrix to his field....

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anil Hardware Store

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been admitted on the following two substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in not following the principle of precedent and its earlier decision dated 27.5.2004 on the same matter in issue given in ITA No. 562/Chandi/2002, titled as Mela Ram Mittar Bhushan v. ITO, Kullu?2. Whether the Ld. ITAT was right in holding that the remuneration is payable to the partners in equal proportion in which the profit and losses are to be distributed to them, even though there is no provision in the partnership deed and only upper limit of remuneration payable has been fixed according to Section 40(b)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.We would first take up the second substantial question of law. The question which arises for consideration is whether as per the partnership deed in question, any remuneration was fixed for payment to the partners of the Firm. Relevant portion of Sec...

Kesri Chand and anr. Vs. Ram Dass and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, dated 26.3.2002, vide which the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 as against the appellants and respondent No. 2 was allowed and the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 84,000/- as compensation, alongwith interest, which was payable by appellants No. 1 and 2 i.e. the owner and the driver of the vehicle.1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 as petitioner/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act as against appellants No. 1 and 2, who were impleaded as the owner and the driver of the vehicle, while respondent No. 2 was impleaded as respondent No. 3 being the insurer of the vehicle. The petitioner alleged that on 20.11.1997 he was present at Suwahal...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shivalik Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court under Sections 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as the Act):Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law holding that Poultry Sheds used for the business of hatching constitute 'Plant' for the purpose of granting depreciation particularly in the light of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases wherein it has been specifically held that such buildings could not be treated as plant for the purposes of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the hatchery Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.3. The assessee claimed depreciation on poultry sheds by treating the same as 'plant'. The Assessing Officer only allowed depreciation treating the ...

Gopal Singh Negi Vs. Netar Singh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, dated 6.1.2004, vide which the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation in favour of the petitioner and as against the present appellant who was respondent No. 4 before the learned Tribunal. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 as claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Act, 1988, as against the appellant who was impleaded as respondent No. 4 and as against respondents No. 2 to 4 who were impleaded as respondents No. 1 to 3. The petitioner had alleged that on 5.10.1999 at about 9.00 P.M., he was going to his house on foot and he was hit by a Motor Cycle No. CH-01-J 7981 being driven by Anand Rajan rashly or negligently. The petitioner suffered injuries an...