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.
State of H.P. Vs. Sheikh Mohammad.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. Respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court which has been challenged in this appeal by the State. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. Precisely, facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. Deceased Seema Begum was the daughter of PW3 Salamti Begum and sister of PW4 Nek Mohammad. She was married to accused-respondent in the month of November, 1996. From this wed-lock, she gave birth to two twin issues. Respondent was working at Indore (M.P.). Deceased was also taken to that place and remained there for some time. Thereafter accused came to his native place. The deceased visited the house of her parents to participate in the marriage of Sardarn Bibi daughter of her uncle but the accused did not visit them. The deceased is alleged to have over-stayed in the house of her parents by one day. When she came to her matrimonial home along with her brother PW4 Nek Mohammad, it is alleged ...
Smt. Dugli. Vs. Smt. Diki Yangzum.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.10.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 91/98 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the appellant(hereinafter referred to as the defendant) and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Manali at Kullu decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land measuring 0.0.8 bighas and also for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from raising any construction over the suit land on the ground that the plaintiff is owner of the suit land. It was alleged that the defendant is trying to raise construction over the open land next to the house of the plaintiff. 3. The defendant raised various pleas and alleged that the plaintiff was trying to encroach upon the land of the defendant. Various issues were framed by the learned Trial Court and additional issues were also fram...
The Executive Engineer. Vs. Deepak Kumar.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. This Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 has been filed for quashing the award dated 22.02.2010 passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala in reference petition No. 93/2006. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was answered by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent.4. In so far as the orders passed re-instating the petitioner are concerned, it calls for no interference by this court after considering the impugned award. However, in so far as the order directing payment of back-wages is concerned to the extent of 25 per cent with effect from 1st September, 2002, We are of the view that since the petitioner has not adduced any reliable evidence on entitlement for backwages, he shall not be entitled to 25 per cent back-wages and the order is modified accordingly to that extent. However, the respondent shall stand reinstated forthwith accordingly. 5. With these observa...
Vijay Chand. Vs. the F.C.-cum-secretary (Finance) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. By means of this petition, the petitioner claims seniority mainly over respondent No.35(Smt. Kaushalya Devi) who according to him was much junior to him. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected and appointed as temporary Assistant/Sub-Treasurer in the Himachal Pradesh Treasury Organization on 27.7.1971. He was promoted as District Treasurer on 23.12.1983 and joined as such on 9.1.1984. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in the seniority list of Sub Treasurers his name wasat Sr. No. 5 above the respondent No.35 Kaushalya Devi whose name appeared at Sr. No. 7. He claims that he was senior to Smt. Kaushalya Devi. This list even according to the petitioner was circulated in the year 31.5.1989. 3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner prayed that he may be permitted to be transferred to the cadre of Sr. Assistants. First prayer made by him in this regard on 8.3.1984 which was rejected on 22.3.1984 on the ground that there was no provision for transfer from one cadre...
Kamal Dutt and anr. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, dated 17.12.2006, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC for execution of the award passed by the court on 1.9.1992. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 3. By an application filed under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC before the learned District Judge, the petitioner had claimed that he is also entitled to the interest on the amount remaining unpaid. In a way, the claim of the petitioner/decree holder was in regard to compound interest, which was claimed to payable on the interest component of the compensation awarded by the court of learned District Judge. The facts of the case have already been referred to by the learned District Judge in the impugned order and it was observed th...
State of H.P. Vs. Budhi Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. Heard and gone through the record. The present appeal by the State has been directed against the acquittal of the respondent passed by the learned Trial Court on 8.1.2001 in Sessions Case No.95/2 of of 2000, for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 read with Section 34, 414 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In short, prosecution story, is that during the intervening night of 13/14.5.2000, complainant Ram Dass Panwar, was away from his residence along with his family to his native place. On 14.5.2000, Ramesh Kumar, a friend of the complainant informed him that when he visited his residence at Boileauganj and found that his house was lying open. He also informed the police. Complainant reached the spot. His statement was recorded by the police under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant along with the police entered his residential room and found jewellery of his wife, missing from the almirah along with cash to the tune of `15,000/-. 5 gold plate...
Mathru. Vs. Krishan Dutt and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 13.5.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.5, Shimla whereby he rejected the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. 2. Originally the plaintiff filed the suit claiming that her father Kirpa Ram alongwith his brother Matha and Mastiya were tenants over the entire suit land and that her father was entitled to 1/3 rd share in the suit land as a tenant. Her father died in the year 1959 and thereafter her mother Kunla became the tenant of 1/3 rd share. Kunla died in the year 1980 and thereafter it was the plaintiff who was recorded as tenant and she got ownership under the Tenancy and Right Reforms Act. The plaintiff challenged the entries recorded in favour of the defendants and prayed that her name should be incorporated in the revenue record. The suit was filed in the year 2001 and when the case was fixed for arguments in the year 2009 then this application was filed and by means of this application...
State of H.P. Vs. Suresh Kumar and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 10.08.2000 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in case No. 51-II of 1993, titled State vs. Suresh Kumar and others, whereby the respondents herein (who shall hereinafter be called as 'the accused' and denoted as A-1, A-2 so on and so forth) were tried for the breach of Rule 11 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (land Routes) Rules, 1978 read with Sections 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short 'the Act') and were ultimately acquitted. 2. Shorn of details, factual matrix of the prosecution case is that on 02.10.1992 a police party headed by SHO Gurmeet Singh of Police Station, Theog, comprising of ASI Devi Lal, HC Diwan Singh and Constable Devinder Singh was present at Dharampur (Diba) in connection with investigation of a case arising out of FIR No. 165 of 1992 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. At about 3:30 a.m. Truck bearing registration No. HIS 1041 came from Kayar...
Sh. Dharam Pal. Vs. Smt. Reshma Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- 5. Whether judgments and decrees passed by the courts below for misreading and misappreciating Ext. P-3, P-4 and Ext. D-1 stand vitiated and liable to be quashed and set aside? 2. Appellant who is the plaintiff, has assailed concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Plaintiffs suit for declaration, permanent injunction and alternate prayer for possession was dismissed by the trial Court in terms of its judgment and decree dated 31.5.1996, passed in Civil Suit No. 178 of 1992, titled as Dharam Pal versus Sita Ram. The same was affirmed by the lower appellate Court in terms of its judgment and decree dated 22.5.2000 passed in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1996, titled as Dharam Pal versus Sita Ram (deceased) through his LRs. 3. The Courts below have concurrently held that Sh. Babu Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants/respondents herein was recorded as a tenant in the revenue record which is evid...
Anjana Kumari. Vs. Manorma Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi whereby he accepted the appeal of respondent No.1 Smt.Manorma Devi and set aside the appointment of the petitioner Anjana Kumari as Anganwari worker. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Karnala under ICDS Block, Chachiot at Gohar was fell vacant and applications were invited for appointment to the said post. The petitioner Anjana Kumari was selected by the Selection Committee. Thereafter, Manorma Devi, respondent No.1 herein filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi wherein the main challenge was that Manorma Devi should have been given more marks and that the Selection Committee was biased in favour of the present petitioner.3. The only argument raised was that the Selection Committee had not awarded the marks properly. This appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »