Himachal Pradesh Court December 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Prem Singh PathaniA. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-2010
1. Heard. Allowed. The legal representatives of the original petitioner (deceased), namely Bhanu Partap Singh, Smt. Shalini are permitted to be brought on record. The application is disposed of. Case of the original petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he joined Indian Army on 6.10.965 and was discharged on compassionate grounds on 20.3.1968. He was appointed as Inspector in the respondent-corporation on 3.10.1972. He sought voluntary retirement from service on 30.9.1999 and the same was allowed on 8.10.1999. Further case of the petitioner is that the services rendered by him in the Indian Army with effect from 6.10.1965 to 20.3.1968 have not been counted by the respondent-corporation towards pensioner benefits. 2. Mr. M.C. Verma has strenuously argued that as per the Demobilized Armed Forces Personal (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal Pradesh State Non Technical Services) Rules, 1972, the services rendered by the petitioner with effect from 6.10.1965 to 20.3.1968, were required to b...
Dabe Ram. Vs. H.P. Tourism Development Corporation and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-2010
1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of memo dated 3.9.2002 Annexure A-3. The perusal of Annexure A-3 dated 3.9.2002 indicates that Managing Director had issued memo to petitioner for holding an inquiry under Rule 39 of H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (Staff) Regulation, 1972/CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The article of charges, statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of each article of charge, list of documents and list of witnesses are also enclosed with memo dated 3.9.2002. The petitioner was directed to file reply within ten days from the receipt of memorandum. 2. In the memo dated 3.9.2002, the Managing Director has specifically directed the petitioner to submit his reply. The petitioner Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? has not filed any reply to memo dated 3.9.2002. In absence of reply the competent authority could not consider the matter and take further step, more particularly when in the meantime t...
Krishan Dutt Sharma and anr. Vs. State of Hp and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-2010
1. By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed that the respondents-State may be directed to re-notify/re-open TikkaBadla, Mauza Jangal, Tehsil & District, Hamirpur for consolidation operations and the notification dated 15.11.1988 issued forclosure/de-notification of consolidation operations may be quashed and set aside and the State be directed to entertainappeals/revisions under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings(Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. 2. The undisputed facts are that the area in question was notified for the purpose of consolidation of holdings in the year 1983-84. On 15.11.1988 the area was de-notified for consolidation operations meaning thereby that consolidation had come to an end. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes3. According to the petitioners in the year 2006 when the area was brought under settlement operations the right holders of the area came to know that wrong allotments of land had...
Radha Krishan, and ors. Vs. Balak Ram, and anr.
Court: Himachal pradesh
Decided on: Dec-25-2010
1. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the respondents failed to plead and prove the claim of tenancy with respect to suit land, in accordance with law? (ii) Whether in the proceedings for restitution of mortgage, the plea of tenancy cannot be determined by the Civil Court? (iii) Whether the stray entries in the revenue record recording suit land as per mark X and Mark Y has to take precedence over the long outstanding entries to the subsequent period onwards -1941 has to be given preference or the latest entries and prevailed over the earlier entries? (iv) Whether the findings recorded by the learned District Judge are vague and without reasoning? (v) Whether inadmissible evidence has been relied upon by the Appellate Court and no contract of tenancy was ever settled between the parties? 2. This regular second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge in Civil Appeal No.67- S/13 ...
Piyush Shah. Vs. J.B.T. Perfumes Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-24-2010
This is the second round of litigation between the parties. The petitioner seeks quashing of the trial at Shimla where a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed against him by the respondent. 2. The undisputed fact is that prior to the institution of the present petition, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of Cr.MMO No. 182 of 2010 alleging therein that Courts at Shimla or anywhere in Himachal Pradesh were not vested with jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint as filed by the petitioner. The learned Court rejected the prayer which order was challenged in this Court. By my order dated 17 th September, 2010 I issued positive direction to the trial Court that it should determine the question of jurisdiction before proceeding with the matter. 3. Adverting to the other facts before passing of the order by me, the learned trial Court was dealing with the application (Annexure P-8 of each petition...
Raghubir Singh PatiA. Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-24-2010
1. The petitioner, who was working as Deputy Ranger in the respondent-department, had retired from the said service on attaining the age of superannuation way back on 30.4.2001. His grievance is that though vacancy in the promotional cadre of Range Forest Officers (Forest Rangers) became available on 1.1.1999, yet the department failed to convene a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) well within time, i.e during March/April, 1999, March/April, 2000 and March/April, 2001, in violation of the instructions contained in the Hand Book of Personnel Matters, copies of which have been brought on record as Annexures A-8, A-9, A-10 and A-11, with the result that the petitioner ultimately retired without being considered for promotion on 30.4.2001. 2. According to the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the department to hold DPC strictly in accordance with the aforesaid instructions and failure to do so has resulted in grave injustice to him. In this regard, reliance has been pl...
Babu Ram. Vs. H.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-24-2010
1. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) Quash the impugned order A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 & A-7 issued arbitrarily, malafide and illegally by the respondents; (b) Direct the respondents to pay all the arrears for the period of suspension and full salary for the period the applicant was kept out of service due to illegal order of compulsory retirement with interest @18%. 2. It is not in dispute that petitioner was employed as a Conductor with the respondent-Corporation. Certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. This fact is also not in dispute. Vide memorandum dated 12.10.1999 (Annexure A-1), petitioner was asked to file his response to the charges levelled against him. It is the allegation of the petitioner that during the course of inquiry, he was coerced to admit his guilt and confess to the charges in writing. This fact is seriously disputed by the respondents. My attention has been invited to the observations made by the Managing Director while pas...
Smt.Bali Devi, and ors. Vs. Sh.Shyam Dutt, and ors.
Court: Himachal pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2010
1. These petitions are being decided by a common judgment since they arise out of one order passed by the Financial Commissioner and identical questions of law and fact are involved in all the petitions. 2. Petitioners are all tenants of private respondents who are the landlords. The predecessors in interest of private respondents filed applications for resumption of tenancy land on the ground that they were not holding in their personal cultivation one and half acres of irrigated or three acres of un-irrigated land. It is not necessary to give the entire history of the case but it would be pertinent to mention that initially these applications were rejected mainly on the ground that original owners were also cultivating some land which belonged to Chaturbhuj Jaunaji temple as Mohatmims of the said temple and therefore such land should be included in the holding while calculating the land in their personal cultivation. In earlier proceedings the Divisional Commissioner vide order date...
State of H.P. Vs. Surinder Kumar.
Court: Himachal pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2010
1. The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reference to judgment dated 27.9.2000, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Una, H.P., in Sessions Case No.53 of 1999, acquitting the accused/respondent for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that on receiving telephonic message on 21.9.1999, that one boy has died by drowning into the well in Chattara, SI Surinder Sharma along with other police officials reached to the spot, where Telu Ram gave his statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. that on the day of incident, at about 3.30 P.M., when he was cutting grass on the grass cutting machine in his courtyard of his house, at that time, he noticed accused/respondent Surinder alias Kaku was going with his son, aged about 3 years, subsequently he threw his son in the well and on asking why he has thrown the boy in the well, accused told him that Sa...
ishwar Dass, and Another. Vs. Dr.Y.S.Parmar University.
Court: Himachal pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. The petitioners have prayed for quashing, setting aside orders dated 9.10.2002, Annexures A-5 and A-6 with further prayer that respondents may be directed that the orders which have been superseded by Annexures A-5 and A-6 should be restored and respondents may further be directed to pay the salary to the petitioners as per earlier pay fixation. 2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 was appointed as Security Guard in the respondent-University vide office order dated 17.6.1992. He joined his duty in the Estate Office of respondent. The petitioner No.1 had served Indian Army from 25.1.1963 to 15.9.1978. He was given benefit of army service for pay fixation under Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the H.P.State NonTechnical Services) Rules, 1972 (for short Rules). 3. The petitioner No. 2 joined the respondent University as Security Guard on 2.9.1992 and he was also given benefit of army service towards pay fixation. The age of retirement of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »