Himachal Pradesh Court March 2011 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.
Parmod Chander Sharma and ors. Vs. State of H.P. ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. The petitioners are legal representatives of original petitioner, Smt. Veena Sharma and petitioner in this judgment refers to Smt. Veena Sharma. This petition has been filed for declaring that deduction of Rs.82,969/- made from the medical claim of the petitioner is illegal, null and void and contrary to instructions and rules, with a further direction to the respondents to pay the said amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 3.9.2002 till actual payment. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner had worked as Superintendent Grade-II in the office of Addl. Excise & Taxation Commissioner, South Zone, Shimla-3. She developed Rheumatoid Arthritis. She was treated at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla (IGMC). She was referred to Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh (PGI) and was treated there. She was advised by doctor at PGI for total knee replacement. The respondents had sanctioned Rs.1,50,000/- an advance for treatment, which was disbursed t...
Pritam Chand and ors. Vs. Paras Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. This is the defendants appeal against the concurrent findings of the two courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration and prohibitory injunction. The plaintiffs-respondents instituted the suit out of which the present appeal arises pleading that they are tenants over the land comprised in Khata No.73, khatanui No. 137, khasra No.1107 and 1108, measuring 0-66-31 hects. situated at Mohal Shahpur, Tehsil and District Kangra, on the allegation that the defendants were never in possession of the land and the entries changed during settlement with respect to possession are contrary to the factual position. The suit was contested by the defendants and twelve issues were settled. The important issues were: (a) Whether the plaintiffs were the tenant of the suit land? (b) Whether the revenue entry in favour of the defendants was wrong (c) Whether the plaintiffs was entitled to the relief of permanent injunction 2. These three issues were found in favour of ...
Anuj KhannA. Vs. Amita KhannA.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. Both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the same set of facts. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of two orders dated 30.8.2010 and 29.11.2010 passed by the learned trial Magistrate. 2. A complaint was filed under the Domestic Violence Act by respondent-Amit Khanna against each of the petitioners. The learned court by its order dated 30 th August, 2010 observed that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the respondents and summons were issued for 13.9.2010. On 29.11.2010, the Court ordered: Power of attorney and an application for dismissal of complaint filed on behalf of the respondents. Copy supplied. On 29.11.2010, the parties are directed to ensure the presence of the respective clients i.e. parties to the present case so that conciliation attempt could be made 3. These are the two orders which have been chal...
Dina Nath SharmA. Vs. Sunder Lal and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur whereby he allowed the application filed by Kamal Dev, respondent No.7 for being imp leaded as defendant in the main suit. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Dina Nath (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit praying that a decree for declaration be passed that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and further prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land. 3. According to the plaintiff, the original defendants were never in possession of the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, Kamal Dev (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC wherein he stated that in fact, he is in possession of the suit land since 13.4.1989 and his possession over t...
Smt.Geeta Devi. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. Petitioner was engaged as a daily-rated Tailor in the year 1995. She became eligible for regularization, on completion of eight years service, as per Government policy. Her services were not regularized. She made various representations, but to no avail. So, she has filed the present petition, seeking direction for regularization of her services as Tailor. 2. Stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner does not fulfil the requisite qualification of matriculation with ITI Certificate and that Government has rejected the proposal made by the department for relaxing the condition of ITI Certificate and that is why she has not been regularized. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is by now well settled that where a person is appointed on daily-wage basis, his qualification for eligibility to the post, to which he is appointed, is to be seen, at the time of his initial engagement as daily-wager and not at the time when his turn comes for regularization, as ...
Surat Singh Thakur. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. Mr. H.K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, has confined his submissions only to the relief of payment and release the pay of the higher post on the basis of Annexures A-5/1, A-5/2 and A-5/3, dated 21.02.1995, 05.08.1998 and 31.01.2001. He has given up all the other reliefs. Petitioner was working as Station Fire Officer. He was directed to look-after the additional charge of the post of Fire Prevention Officer, Head Quarters temporarily till further orders on 21.02.1995. Thereafter, vide office order dated 05.08.1998, the petitioner was directed to look-after the work of the vacant post of Fire Prevention Officer in the office of Chief Fire Officer (Hdqrs.) with immediate effect till further orders. However, a condition was imposed in the office order that no extra salary/allowances and seniority benefits will be admissible to the petitioner on account of looking after the charge of the post of Fire Prevention Officer. Petitioner was adjusted ag...
Ashwani Kumar. Vs. Charanjit Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
1. The present petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned District Judge in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 60 of 2009, dated 18.9.2009. By the said order, the learned District Judge had allowed the appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. II, Amb, dated 23.5.2009, dismissing the application for the grant of an injunction. 2. During the course of hearing before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. for appropriate orders since Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? the order passed by the learned District Judge was against a dead person, namely, respondent No. 1 Dev Raj before the learned District Judge, who was already dead on the date when the order was passed by the learned District Judge. A copy of the death certificate filed in the case with the application shows that respondent...
Krishna Devi. Vs. Sanni Devi and ors
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. Respondent Krishna Devi in CWP No. 3895 of 2010 is the appellant herein. The issue pertains to the action taken against the private respondent to terminate her from the post of Mid Day Meal Worker at the Government Primary School, Chaura, Education Block, Karsog, District Mandi. According to the appellant, there were sufficient grounds to terminate her from service and hence the writ petition should have been dismissed.2. The Learned Single Judge having gone through the record, disposed of the writ petition, settling the principle that in case of retrenchment it should be on the basis of last come first go. There was also a direction to pay costs by the appellant herein and the P.T.A. 3. It is the contention of the appellant that there were certain serious complaints against the writ petitioner and hence only the action was taken for removing her from service. According to the writ petitioner/private respondent, the alleged complaints were put up at the instance of the husband of th...
Surinder Singh and ors. Vs. Kuldeep Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 6.9.2010 whereby the application filed by the judgement debtors for requisitioning the record of Civil Suit No. 153 of 1987 has been rejected. 2. In the trial Court the only ground given for requisitioning the record of the case was that the dispute involved in the earlier suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 153 of 1987 was similar to the dispute involved in the case out of which execution proceedings arise and until the decision of the earlier suit the present proceedings were not maintainable. 3. The records were sought to be requisitioned only on this ground. The learned trial Court rejected this application holding that such an application for reviving the suit could only have been filed in the civil suit and the execution proceedings could not be stayed because of the old suit being pending. I find no error in the order of the learned trail Court. 4. At this stage Shri Rakesh Jaswal, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he limit...
Rajneesh VasudevA. Vs. Mohinder Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. This is a petition for granting leave to appeal against the judgment dated 25.9.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kandaghat, District Solan in Criminal Case No.12/3 of 2000 acquitting the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant alongwith his family members and friend Ramesh had booked rooms No. 4 and 5 which was occupied by them on 10.2.2000 and 11.2.2000 in Tourist Inn at Kyarighat. It has been alleged that they stayed in those rooms on 10.2.2000 and 11.2.2000 till 1.30 p.m. Thereafter the complainant alongwith his wife, children and friend went to Shogi, Tara Devi and Shimla without making any payment of stay and food as they were to be there for the night. 3. It has been alleged when complainant and his family members returned back at about 9 p.m. on the same day and when they tried to enter into the rooms No.4 and 5 they came to know that their rooms have been illegally occupied by respondent No.3. The complainant and his wife a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »