Himachal Pradesh Court February 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S Hamara Furniture Scd and anr. Vs. M.S Dev Foam Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of two Courts below convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as also to pay compensation of `60,000/-. In default of payment of compensation, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The case pleaded by the complainant/respondent is that the complainant is a registered company having its Industrial Unit at village Thanthewal (Rajpura), Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. A cheque Ext.C1 amounting to ` 50,000/- was issued by the petitioners and was subsequently dishonoured by the HDFC Bank, Chandigarh on which it was drawn. The memo accompanying the cheque stated that there were insufficient funds in the account of petitioners, who had issued this cheque. The defence set up by the petitioners was that the cheque had been issued as security and not for valuable consid...
Hori Lal. Vs. State of H.P. and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of charge sheet dated 1.2.1996 Annexure A-1 issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965(for short Rules), memo dated 23.5.2001 Annexure A-10 whereby the petitioner was given an opportunity of making representation on the proposed penalty, order dated 3.9.2001 Annexure A-12 imposing penalty of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect with immediate effect. The connected prayer is for a direction to the respondents to release his arrears of pay after re-fixing his pay in accordance with law along with interest. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is serving as Superintendent Grade-II. The petitioner was charge sheeted vide memo dated 1.2.1996 under Rule 14 for not preparing the arrears bills of Smt. Nirmal Kanta Lecturer and Vipin Chand Assistant Librarian while working as Senior Assistant, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Paonta Sahib. He was in the habit of g...
Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Padmawati and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
1. This order shall dispose of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner/Insurance Company against the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dated 6.9.2010, vide which, the application filed by the claimants under Section 151 CPC for taking on record additional evidence was allowed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the claim petition filed by the claimants was pending before the learned Tribunal, which was fixed for pronouncement of judgment and at that stage, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed for taking on record additional evidence. It was alleged in the application that it has been revealed that the Investigating Officer has not been examined due to oversight, who is essential in the case. Hence the application filed by the claimants. 4. In the reply filed by the present petitioner/Insurance Compan...
Bal Kishan. Vs. Ram Parshad and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
1. This is defendants second appeal against the concurrent findings of the two courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiffrespondent granting a declaratory decree that the Will (Ext.PA) executed by late Bhangi on 3.9.1981 with respect to the suit property comprised in Khasra No. 246/291, Khata No. 82/79 Khatauni No.174 is invalid and in operative in law and the consequent proceedings including the mutation dated 20.7.1990 does not binding on the plaintiff. The findings that the Will was not duly executed in accordance with the provisions of Indian Succession Act inasmuch as the testator was incapable of understanding the nature of disposition have been upheld by the appellate Court. The defendant is now in appeal. 2. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law by this Court on 18 th August, 2009: 1. Whether learned lower appellate court has erred in not drawing presumption under Section 60 of the Registration Act in favour of valid registration of the Wi...
The Executive Engineer. Vs. Manohar Lal.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2011
1. This Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 has been filed by the State against the award of the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala in reference No. 48 of 2006, dated 20.07.2010. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In so far as the order passed by the learned Tribunal is concerned, since there is no order for payment of back-wages, the order can be said to be correct, since the finding based on violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H are based on evidence available on record. There arises no question of reappraisal of evidence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The view of the Tribunal is reasonable. However, in so far as the order passed regarding continuity in service and seniority from his termination is concerned, the said order does not call for any interference by this Court since denying him continuity in service and seniority from the date of his termination will cause prejudice to the respondent and as such the same...
Hitender Kumar Sharma and. Vs. State of H.P. and anr. anr
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. This is a petition for review. It appears that the writ petition was posted along with batch of cases pertaining to regularization/conferment of work charge status of the daily waged Blears. As a matter of fact, the case of the petitioners has nothing to do with the regularization/conferment of work charge status of daily waged Blears. The petitioners are Shastris. Their case is that of regularization after completion of 8 years of service. 2. In that view of the matter, there being an error apparent on the face of the record, the review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 28.10.2010 in CWP No. 4436 of 2010 is recalled. The review petition is disposed of. CWP No.4436 of 2010. 3. The petitioners are Shastris. They claimed that they should be regularized in service on completion of 8 years of service. According to the petitioners, this Court has now considered the issue leading to the judgment dated 28th October, 2010 in CWP No.4421 of 2010 titled as Nitya Dev vs. State of HP a...
Vinod Kumar. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. Petitioner was appointed as GDO-II (Medical Officer) in the respondent-Department on 12.8.1978. His date of birth in service book was recorded as 22.8.1948 on the basis of Annexure A-2, i.e. Higher Secondary Certificate. He made representation for the first time on 11.8.2006 (Annexure A-1) for the correction of date of birth from 22.8.1948 to 22.8.1949 to the respondent. 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma has strenuously argued that the date of birth of his client recorded in the Higher Secondary Certificate is wrong and according to him as per Annexure A-3, date of birth of his client is 22.8.1949. 3. Mr. Anshul Bansal has vehemently argued that the representation made by the petitioner was belated since the same has been made after 28 years of entering into the Government service. He also contended that in the service book, date of birth is recorded on the basis of Higher Secondary Certificate, Annexure A-2. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings caref...
Hitender Kumar Sharma and anr. Vs. State of H.P. and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. This is a petition for review. It appears that the writ petition was posted along with batch of cases pertaining to regularization/conferment of work charge status of the daily waged Beldars. As a matter of fact, the case of the petitioners has nothing to do with the regularization/conferment of work charge status of daily waged Beldars. The petitioners are Shastris. Their case is that of regularization after completion of 8 years of service. In that view of the matter, there being an error apparent on the face of the record, the review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 28.10.2010 in CWP No. 4436 of 2010 is recalled. The review petition is disposed of. CWP No.4436 of 2010. 2. The petitioners are Shastris. They claimed that they should be regularized in service on completion of 8 years of service. According to the petitioners, this Court has now considered the issue leading to the judgment dated 28th October, 2010 in CWP No.4421 of 2010 titled as Nitya Dev vs. State of HP an...
Amar Singh AryA. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. Petitioner was appointed as Plant Protection Inspector in the respondent-Department in the year 1975. His date of birth was recorded as 21.9.1948 in his service book. He claims that he made two representations to the respondents to correct his date of birth from 21.9.1948 to 21.9.1951. This averment has been denied by the respondents in the reply. Petitioner made representation in the year 1992 for change of his date of birth. The same was rejected by respondent No.2 on 2.9.1992. Petitioner superannuated on 30.9.2006. 2. Ms. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that the date of birth of the petitioner was required to be altered from 21.9.1948 to 21.9.1951. 3. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General has vehemently argued that petitioner was required to move appropriate application for the correction of date of birth, within two years after entering into Government service, as per the provisions of the H.P.F.R. He has also placed reliance on Annexure A-3 dated 18.9.1991. 4....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›