Himachal Pradesh Court May 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.
State of H.P. Vs. Dalip Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-24-2010
R.B. Misra, J.1. The present appeal has arisen after leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 of the code of Criminal Procedure in reference to judgment of acquittal dated 19.7.1996, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Sessions Trial No. 1-NL/7 of 1995, acquitting the appellant of the offence under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code.2. In order to adjudicate the present appeal, it is necessary to give factual background of the case of the prosecution. It appears that on 12.10.1994, there was marriage of Rajbir Singh Gill which had taken place in village Dhella. Accused as well as Suleman (deceased) son of Shri Kalu resident of village Chanal Majra had also participated in the said marriage and had consumed alcohol with others. While going to his house, Suleman (deceased) was bibbing and was alleged to have accompanied Raghubir Singh.3. It appears that on 12.11.1994, the dead body of Suleman was recovered from a Well near village Dhella and mother of deceased Su...
Sushil Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-24-2010
Kurian Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved since he is not able to reap the fruits of orders passed by this Court regarding the vacation salary. It appears that the Government had initially decided to grant the benefit but it is seen that the same has been withdrawn as per Annexure P-3 on the ground that the State has decided to take up the matter to the Supreme Court. We are informed that the State has already filed SLP against the order dated 1.9.2008, passed in CWP No. 144 of 2000.2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the SLP has not even been registered before the Apex Court and the petitioner seeks the benefit of order dated 1.9.2008, which the State initially had decided to implement. Apparently, the non-implementation is only on account of their decision to move the Supreme Court. It is also submitted that since the SLP has not even been admitted and since there is no interim order, there is no justification in not granting the benefit to the petitioner ...
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Basant Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-21-2010
Kurian Joseph, C.J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Telegraph Authority is bound to pay the land value by way of compensation while exercising its power to lay a telegraph line or post in any property. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 provides for the power to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts. It reads as follows:10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts.- The telegraph authority may, from time to time, plce and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immoveable property;Provided that-(a) the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the Central Government, or to be so established or maintained;(b) the Central Government shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the ...
Enakshi Mahajan Vs. Surinder Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-21-2010
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 10.04.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 296 of 2000.2. The undisputed facts are that Shri Santokh Singh S/o Shri Partap Singh resident of B/15, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi, (predecessor-in-interest of the original writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 here-in) purchased a property known as Cosy Nook Estate from the District Rent and Managing Officer on 31.10.1961 for a sum of Rs. 52,000/-. This property was evacuee property and was sold under the provision of Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (here-in-after referred to as the Act).3. The appellant here-in purchased some land comprised in Khasra No. 598/B, 598/2 and half share of Khasra No. 598/C from the legal heirs of Shri Kishore Chand Bhandari vide two separate sale deeds, both of which were executed on 5.7.1978. Thereafter, the appellant complained to the revenue authorities that in fact an area me...
Virender Singh Vs. State of H.P. and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2010
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the award passed by the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, dated 11.7.2008, vide which the learned Tribunal has held that the claim of the petitioner fails and the same was dismissed on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The question before the learned Tribunal was whether the termination of the services of the petitioner as daily-wage Beldar by the Executive Engineer was without any notice and without complying with the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act was legal and justified. The petitioner had also prayed for the daily-wage seniority, service benefits etc.2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Both the parties led evidence and the learned Tribunal, vide its impugned award, held that the termination of the services of the petitioner is not vio...
Hira Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-20-2010
1. Petitioner joined the Indian Army in 1980. He was discharged from the Indian Army. Thereafter, he applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher. He was appointed as Physical Education Teacher on 18.09.1998 against the General category. Respondent-State has issued instructions on 23.05.1975, whereby a released army personnel, who has been appointed against a non-reserved vacancy, is required to be given at first instance an option to accept a reserved vacancy, even if it occurs subsequent to his appointment to give him the benefit of seniority etc.. In this case, the petitioner exercised his option on 05.11.1999. However, pay of the petitioner was fixed w.e.f. 01.01.2001 instead of 18.09.1998, as claimed by him. 2. Mr. V.D. Khidta, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that action of the respondents of fixing the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2001 instead of 18.09.1998 is wrong, illegal, arbitrary and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constit...
Om Prakash Sharma Vs. H.P.T.D.C. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2010
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. The petitioner challenges the tendering process by the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation - respondent No. 1. In nutshell, the case made out by the petitioner is that he had submitted his tender in terms of the advertisement in the newspaper (Annexure: R-1) issued by respondent No. 1. However, the tender was returned to him on 19th January, 2010 on the ground that it had been received after the time fixed for receipt of tenders.2. At this juncture, two conditions of the tender as contained in Annexure: R-1 may be extracted:1. The tender documents can be collected from the office of the Project Officer, HPTDC on any working day between 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. from 18.11.2009 to 27.11.2009 in the shape of demand draft drawn on a scheduled or nationalized bank and pledged in favour of the Managing Director, HPTDC, Shimla payable at Shimla must accompany each tender. The tender shall be receive on 30.11.2009 up to 3.30 P.M. in the office of the Project O...
Bishamber Lal Vs. Rajinder Parshad and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-2010
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the CPC read with Section 20 of the Himachal Courts Act, 1972, against the judgment and decree, dated 4.8.2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla, setting aside the judgment and decree of the court of learned Sub Judge, Court No. V dated 27.9.2000, vide which he had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession of one room.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of one room alleging that he was the owner of the building No. 438 alongwith other property at Kanlog, which he had inherited from his late father Shri Ghungar Mall, who died in the year 1977. It was alleged that after the death of the father of the plaintiff, there was a family settlement between the plaintiff and his brothers Shri Rajinder Prasad, defendant No. 3, and Vijay Kumar, which was effected in between the parties through a memo of p...
Sudhir Kumar Vs. Smt. Anita and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2010
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 3, here-in-after referred to as the claimants filed a petition under Section 3 of Workmen's Compensation Act for payment of compensation in regard to the death of one Janak Raj. It was alleged by the claimants that claimant No. 1 Anita is the widow of deceased, while claimants No. 2 and 3 are the minor son and daughter of late Janak Raj, who died in an accident. The deceased Janak Raj had been employed by respondent No. 1 Sudhir Kumar, present appellant, here-in-after referred to as respondent No. 1, to drive his truck/Tanker on a monthly wages of Rs. 4000/-. The deceased was on his way back to Ambala and died in an accident of Truck No. HP-19-3266, which fell into a deep gorge near village Gaalu on 27.1...
Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Yudhbir Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-2010
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act') against the award, dated 28.10.2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharmashala. This judgment shall also dispose of the Cross Objections filed by the respondents under Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC against the said award.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 11.3.1989, duly published in the newspapers, dated 14.10.1989 and 11.11.1989, the land was acquired for the construction of Mukerian-Talwara-Nurpur-Chakki Dhar Road. The land of the petitioners involved in the notification was measuring 0-01-44 hectares. The Land Acquisition Collector entered into reference and on conclusion, he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,51,384/- per hectare. Reference petition was filed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act before the learned District ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »