Himachal Pradesh Court March 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.
icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt.Meena Devi and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. This application has been preferred by the applicant herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this appeal.The appeal is barred by 142 days.The explanation put forth by the appellant is that the file was mixed up in the other record of the appellant and was traced out after sometime. 2. So far as the law of condonation of delay is concerned, it is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court inBalwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh and Others, (2010)8 SCC 685,wherein the Court has emphasized that it is the quality of the explanation which has to be accepted.The averments made in this application would not constitute valid explanation for invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3.Even without adverting to that, if delay is condoned, what I find is that the questions raised in this appeal are squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court inVed Prakash Gargvs. Premi Devi, (2009)1 ACJ 1 SC and Sunil Kumarvs. Lali...
Vimal Kishore Vs. Arvind Kashyap and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, rejecting the complaint under Sections 506, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Atrocities of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act. 2. The complaint was instituted by Ram Lal, who is since deceased, on the allegations that the accused was residing in the neighborhood of the house of the complainant. He was having a grudge against the complainant and his family members and was proclaiming his superior cast calling the complainant and his family “Kolis”, who were unfit to live there and deserved to be shunted out from the neighbourhood. 3. Five witnesses were examined by the complainant in support of the allegations which were made. Complainant Ram Lal appeared as CW-1. CW-2 Vimal Kishore, son of the complainant, has stated that the accused nurtured a grudge against his family members since they belong to a lower caste. CW-3 Pawan Kumar and CW-4 Gulab Singh also te...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Chand Katoch and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. State has appealed against the judgment dated 8th March, 2000 of learned Special Judge, whereby respondents Suresh Chand Katoch and Chet Ram, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 465, 467, 471, 409 & 420, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, have been acquitted. 2. Respondent Suresh Chand Katoch was working as Junior Engineer in Irrigation & Public Health Department, Sub Division Barsar and respondent Chet Ram was working as Supervisor under him. Respondent Chet Ram submitted an undated handwritten complaint Ex. PW-14/A to Irrigation & Public Health Minister, Himachal Pradesh, in which several allegations were made against the higher officials of the Department. One of the allegations was that bogus Muster Rolls had been prepared and the amount mentioned in those Muster Rolls, shown to have been disbursed to the labourers named therein, had been pocketed by certain Engineers....
Neel Kumar @ Neelu Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. The petitioner seeks to be admitted on bail on the allegation that he is not involved in any offence under Section 376, 511 and 377 IPC, registered at Police Station Arki, District Solan vide FIR No.50/2010 dated 27.04.2010. 2. It is pleaded that the case is now fixed for evidence of the prosecution on 16th May, 2011. The investigation is complete and even according to the material, which has been brought on record of the investigation, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. Notice of this application was given to the State. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have gone through the record of the case. 4. This application is rejected primarily on the ground that the case is now fixed for recording evidence on behalf of the prosecution on 16th May, 2011. In these circumstances, I will not proceed to hold a trial within a trial. Adverting to the second aspect of the matter that the petitioner is not guil...
Amar Singh and Others Vs. Pushpa Khanna and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 25 th February, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kasauli, whereby she rejected the plaint filed by the defendants for amendment of the written statement. 2. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit claiming to be owner in possession of the suit land and prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs. The stand of the petitioners-defendants was that though they had initially agreed to sell the suit land to Shri Janak Raj but this deal did not finally mature. According to the defendants the sale deed reflected the sale consideration only of Rs.40,000/- whereas in fact total sale consideration was of Rs.4,00,000/- out of which Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. Rs.40,000/- only were paid which was reflected in the sale deed and ...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Balbir
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. The challenge herein in this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short ‘Cr. P.C’) is against the judgment dated 27.11.2003, of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur, at Reckong Peo, whereby the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’), was acquitted of the offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1872 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that in the month of March 1997, the accused had cut and removed two deodar trees from Government Forest without valid permit/permission. It was noticed only on 27.3.1997, when Shri Ramesh Chand, Block Officer (PW-1) and Shri Daulat Ram, Forest Guard (PW-4), were on routine checking in the jungle. On enquiry, it was revealed that the trees have been felled by the accused, who had carried away the timber to his house.Accordingly, both the aforesaid Forest Officials went to the house of the accused, who confessed his guilt in th...
Chuni Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. Chuni Lal, appellant is aggrieved by the judgement, dated 31.12.2007, rendered by Special Judge, Chamba, whereby he has been convicted of offences, under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced as follows:- (a) Ten years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence, under Section 409 IPC; (b) Seven years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence, under section 420 IPC. (c) Ten years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence, under Section 467 IPC; (d) Seven years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence, under section 468 IPC; (e) Seven years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence, under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. A report, under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was filed by the police against the present appellant and one Joginder Kumar. The appellant had been working as Range Officer, Tissa during the years 1989 and 1990. Joginder Kumar, ...
Mohan Singh Vs. Kewal Ram and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned District Judge, Sirmour, dated 11.4.2000, vide which he had affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Rajgarh, dated 11.11.1999, decreeing the suit of the respondent for permanent prohibitory injunction in his favour and as against the appellant. 2. Briefly stated, the fact of the case are that the respondent as plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction as against the appellant hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 1 and as against respondent No. 2 who was impleaded as defendant No. 2 and against one Gurdial Singh. 1.Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as alleged by the plaintiff are that he is exclusive owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra Numbers 1372/1102/442/2 and 1376/1105/44...
Dheeraj Ram Vs. Rameshwari Chauhan and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 24thDecember, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla whereby he confirmed the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. VI, Shimla, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff)for taking action under Order 39 Rule 2-A against the contesting defendants No. 1 and 2. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit in which he prayed that the contesting respondents be restrained from raising construction.On the application filed by the plaintiff the learned trial Court on 27th June, 2006 passed an order directing the defendants to maintain status-quo. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 3. The applicant-petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A complaining that despite the stay order passed by the learned trial Court the contesting defendants have continuedwith the construction.Evi...
Amit Kumar Vs. H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority and Anothe ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner had been awarded some work by the respondents. On completion of the said work, bill was submitted by the petitioner to the respondents, for payment. The entire amount of the bill has not been paid. According to the petitioner, a sum of `1,00,000/- plus interest, is due. 3. Admittedly, the matter is covered by Arbitration Clause of Agreement Ex. P-1. As per Arbitration Clause No.25, dispute is required to be referred to the arbitration of a person, to be nominated by Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Himachal Pradesh Housing Board. Notice was issued to the said Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, for appointment of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Arbitrator. Copy of that notice is Annexure P-3. Despite due service of notice, said Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer did not appoint any Arbitrator, within the time prescribed, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In fact, no Arbitrator...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »