Himachal Pradesh Court April 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.
Mani Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
1. The petitioner has prayed mainly the following reliefs:- i) The respondents No. 1 to 5 may be directed not to give appointment and joining to respondent No.6. (ii) The respondents No. 1 to 5 may be directed to give appointment & joining to the applicant as Part-time water Carrier for Govt. Primary School Jubbli, Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being a poor and handicapped person had applied under clause 12 of the Policy for appointment as Part-time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Jubbli, Tehsil, Chopal. The case of the petitioner was considered by the Government. The respondent No.3 vide letter dated 6.10.2005 asked certain documents from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted all the documents to respondents No. 3 and 4 immediately after the receipt of letter dated 6.10.2005. The petitioner is physically handicapped to the extent of 40% and is also an unemployed. The distance between the school in question and t...
Municipal Corporation, Shimla Vs. Kuldeep Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
1. This petition by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla is directed against the judgment dated 27.8.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and the order dated 19.6.2010 restraining the respondent from carrying out any further construction till final outcome of the investigation by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department was set aside. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent herein purchased a plot measuring 159.69 Sq. metres in Kaithu, Tehsil and District Shimla in the year 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2006. The plot had been approved for construction in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. At that time necessary permissions from all concerned were obtained and according to the Forest Department no trees were existing on the spot. 3. After the respondent purchased the plot, he submitted plans to the Municipal Cor...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Partap Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
1. The acquittal of the respondent Partap Singh, a Salesman of the ‘Neri Cooperative Marketing-cumProcessing Society Limited’ who later became its President, has been challenged in this appeal by the State for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, allegedly for misappropriating an amount of `20,223.85 paise. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully reappraised the evidence on record. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 3. The factual matrix of the case can be stated thus. On 23.7.1992, the police received a complaint mark-‘X’ through Shri Krishan Gopal, Inspector of the Cooperative Society, Theog for registration of the FIR, which contained the allegation that the cash amount of ‘Neri Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited’, Theog was misappropriated. Thus, the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies vide his letter dated 6.5.1992 directed to ge...
Kartar Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
1. Appeals, in which the same judgment, i.e. judgment dated 30th November, 2004, of learned Special Judge, has been assailed, are being disposed of. Two persons have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, vide impugned judgment. They have filed separate appeals. So, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Case of the prosecution may be stated thus. There is a village, by the name of Kohila in Ani Sub Division of Kullu District. Prem Dass, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2004, retired as Kanoongo from Revenue Department, in the year 1985. Before being promoted as Kanoongo, he served as Patwari. On account of his being a member of field staff of Revenue Department, he made friends with Kartar Chand, appellant in the second appeal, i.e. Criminal Appeal No.521 of 2004. Appellant Kartar Chand was posted as Patwari in Kohila Mohal, during the period 1988 to 1991. He handed over the charge to PW-16 Ram Sarup. Appellant Prem Dass, who is permanent residen...
Mehar Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
1. The petitioner challenges his conviction under Section 279 and 337 I.P.C. sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 279 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for three months under Section 337 I.P.C. 2. The case set up by the prosecution against the petitioner is that F.I.R. No.93 of 2001 was filed with Police Station, Kandaghat on 2.10.2001 on the statement of Mahinder Kumar complainant. He stated that he was the conductor of H.R.T.C. bus and on that date, he and PW5 Jai Parkash were assigned duties on the bus bearing No. HP-14-5308 to Amritsar. At around 8.30 p.m. when the bus reached near Kiarighat, truck No. HP-11-3067 being driven by the petitioner came from the opposite side at a high speed on the wrong side. 3. This truck hit the bus of the complainant as a result of which he and his son suffered injuries. The driver fled away from the scene of the accident and the injured were rushed to the Indira Gandhi Medical College a...
Madhu Bala and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. All the above titled appeals are arising from the same judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Trial No.1-NL/7 of 2001, decided on 7th January, 2002, whereby appellants Madhu Bala in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2002 and Puran Singh Rautela in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2002 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of `25,000/- each, with default clause, whereas, the other respondents, namely Rajni Devi, Nirmala Devi and Sarita Goyal were acquitted and against their acquittal, the State has filed Criminal Appeal No.222 of 2002, hence taken up together for decision. 2. In short, the prosecution case as emerges from the evidence on record, can be stated thus. Deceased Roshni Devi, daughter of PW1 Manfulia and PW3 Smt. Kamla Devi, was aged about 19 years. She was earlier working in “Dee...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Vijay Kumar and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 25.11.2000 rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable, under sections 341, 326 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that complainant Baldev Krishan was on his way to his house in Shamnagar of Dharamshala town. He was accosted by the respondents, who were under the influence of liquor. Respondent No.2 Shyam Singh caught hold of the complainant and respondent No1 Vijay Kumar put his left ring finger in his mouth and by giving a tooth bite, he amputated the distal portion of his left ring finger. Complainant went to Police Station and lodged F.I.R. Ex.PW-2/B. The complainant was taken to hospital. He was medically examined by Dr. Arun Tanglikar (PW-3) and he referred him to Dr. R.K. Mahajan, who gave his opinion on the basis of X-ray of left ring finger of the co...
V.K.Sharma Vs. Minakshi Sharma and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.VI, Shimla, dated 23.11.2010, whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC was allowed. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. A perusal of the record shows that the suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating, in any manner, the suit property, as detailed in the plaint, was filed by the plaintiff. The suit was being contested by defendants No.1 and 2. During the course of proceedings, the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff and an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC was filed by the plaintiff to place on record certain documents. The documents in question are certified copy of the jamabandi of some pr...
Ram Rattan and ors. Vs. Asha and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kandaghat, dated 17.3.2009, vide which he had rejected the written statement filed by the petitioners, since it was filed beyond time. 2. Notices were issued to the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for then parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. It is clear that the service of other defendants had not yet been effected. Time to file the written statement could have been extended by the learned trial Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. These are procedural matter and steps have to be taken and due opportunities to both the parties to present their cases have to be given. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The written statement already filed by the petitioners is allowed to be taken on r...
Sh.Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Rikhi Ram and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2011
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 31.8.2010 whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the application under Order 26 Rule 9, CPC filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land and in the alternative, a suit for possession by demolition of the structure raised by the defendants was filed. 3. The case of the defendants was that they had got their land demarcated in the presence of the plaintiff and after the demarcation was conducted, they had raised the construction strictly in accordance with the demarcation reports. After the parties had led evidence and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9, CPC praying that a Local Commissioner be appointed to demarcate the land. This application was filed sometime in Septem...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »