Himachal Pradesh Court May 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.
Khiali Ram and anr. Vs. Yash Pal and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants who lost his son in motor accident on 26.3.1999. The case instituted was that on the fateful day, the deceased, son of the appellants, aged about 10 years, studying in 5 th standard, was standing on the road side with his father when he was hit by a maruti van, belonging to respondent No.1. Respondent No. 3 is the driver, since deceased. 2. On the entirety of evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the petition holding that it was not established on record that Maruti van bearing No. DL-1CC-7192, the vehicle involved in the accident, caused the death of the son of petitioners. The Court held that in the First Information Report, lodged by the father of the deceased-appellant No.1 herein, there was categorical admission on his part that he did not see the driver and that colour of the vehicle was also red. In fact it was proved on record that the vehicle in question was white. The Court concluded that it was a hit and run case and t...
Bachan Singh Vs. Rattan Singh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. By means of this petition the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has challenged the order dated 16.3.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bilaspur, allowing the application under Section 151 CPC filed by the defendants permitting the defendant No.1 to appear in the witness box. 2. The undisputed facts are that the suit in question was filed in the year 2004. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are real brothers. Defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. The main dispute involved in the suit is with regard to the validity of the Will set up by Shri Rattan Singh wherein each of the parties have been given 1/3rd share in the property of late Shri Sukh Ram. The plaintiff on the other hand claims that he and defendant No.1 have half share each in the property in terms of the Will dated 29.12.1993 whereas the defendant claims that his father has executed another Will on 21.08.2003 wherein 1/3rd share was given to each of the parties. 3. The parties...
Pawan Kumar Vs. Magma Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 30.3.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan whereby he allowed the appeal of respondent No.1 and set aside the order of the learned Trial Court and allowed respondent No.1 to sell/transfer the vehicle subject to certain conditions. 2. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff had raised a loan from ICICI Bank-respondent No.3 for purchase of a truck. According to the plaintiff, he had repaid the full amount of the loan, but the ICICI Bank showed that some amount is still outstanding and transferred the outstanding liability in favour of respondent No.1. 3. The petitioner claims that this could not have been done since there was no liability and even if there was any liability it could not be transferred. On this basis it was urged that the truck of the plaintiff which had been seized by the respondent No.1 be not sold. Alongwith the suit, an application for interim stay was filed before the learned Trial Cour...
Om Parkash and ors. Vs. Chuni Lal and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. By means of this petition the petitioners (here-in-after referred to as the defendants) have challenged the order dated 24.02.2011 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nadaun has allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land. 2. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiffs filed a suit praying that they are owners of Khasra Nos. 489, 490, 491, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514 kita 20 measuring 2028- 03 sq.mts. situate in Tika Doli Gharana Mouza Kohla, Tehsil Nadaun District Hamirpur and prayed that the boundary of these khasra numbers be fixed by way of demarcation and the defendants be restrained from raising any construction or interfering in the land in question. 3. The defendants filed written statement. They claimed that out of the suit land they are in possession of Khasra Nos. 504, 505, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514 m...
Khajan Chand Vs. Onkar Chand
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.3.2011 passed by learned Rent Controller, Theog, District Shimla whereby the defence of the respondent-tenant was struck off. It appears that the learned Rent Controller closed the right of the respondenttenant to file reply and struck off the defence only on the ground that period of 90 days had expired from the date of his service. 2. The learned Rent Controller lost sight of the fact that only those provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to rent proceedings which have been specifically Otherwise only the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable and the maximum time limit fixed for filing the written statement in the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be said to be a principle of the Code of Civil Procedure. On this short ground, the petition will have to be allowed. 3. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the order dated 1.3.2011 passed by learned Rent Controller, Theog is s...
Pritam Singh Vs. H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2011
1. The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (a) and (b):- “7 (a). Quash the impugned order A-4 whereby the respondents have reverted the applicant arbitrarily, mala fide and illegally. (b). Direct the respondent to permit the applicant to continue as Driver with all consequential benefits. 2. In reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, the following stand has been taken vide para 6 (2):- “6 (2). That the contents of this para of the OA are totally wrong and hence denied. It is worth to mention here that the applicant has not completed requisite number of years of service as daily wage driver for the post of driver. Since he has worked daily wage driver continuously only w.e.f. 1.4.94 to 6.2.98, which is less than four years. The applicant has worked daily wage cleaner since 1.7.1987 to 31.12.1993, which is more than 6 years. As per the policy issued dt. 11.12.1997 by the State Government for the regularization of daily wager, the applicant is to be...
Rakesh Kumar Chhabra and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2011
1. By this common judgment, three appeals, one filed by Rakesh Kumar Chhabra, another by Surinder Mohan Katwal and third by Dr. Vidya Nath, are being disposed of because all these appeals arise out of the same judgment, i.e judgment dated 28.8.2006 of learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, whereby appellants Surinder Mohan Katwal and Dr. Vidya Nath have been convicted of offences, under Sections 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC and appellant Rakesh Kumar Chhabra of offences, under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. 2. Factual matrix of the case, on which the prosecution case is based, lies in a narrow compass. Appellant Surinder Mohan Katwal was Chairman of Subordinate Staff Selection Board, with headquarters at Hamirpur and appellant Dr. Vidya Nath was a Member of that Board, during the years 2001 and 2002. There were 238 vacancies of Physical Education Teachers (PET) available in different schools of various Districts of the State....
Hari Chand Akrot Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2011
1. By means of this petition the petitioner claims that his services should have been taken over as Assistant Librarian and not as Lab Attendant and that he should be paid salary for the entire period for which he worked. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner joined the National College Amb as clerk on and w.e.f. 1.8.1970. He was confirmed on 1.7.1991 and thereafter appears to have been promoted/designated as Assistant Librarian. 3. The State of H.P. formulated a policy for taking over privately managed colleges in the State of Himachal Pradesh and notification in this behalf was issued on 25.8.1994. As per this notification the services of qualified teaching and non-teaching staff who were appointed at least one year prior to taking over would be taken over and they would be placed at the bottom of the cadre in which the services were taken over. 4. The National College, Amb was taken over by the State of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 27th June, 1997. The services...
Bansi Ram and ors. Vs. H.P. S.E.B. and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2011
1. All these petitions, which have been filed on identical facts and raise common questions of law, are being taken up for disposal by a common judgment. 2. The petitions have been filed on the following identical prayer:- “That the respondents may be directed to grant the proficiency increments to the applicant from the due date with all benefits incidental thereof such as arrears, fixation of pay etc.” 3. In identical replies, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6 (II) & (III):- “In reply to these paras, it is submitted that so far as the proficiency step up to the employees of the Board is concerned, it is further submitted that the respondent-Board vide Office Order No. 138/HPSEB (SECTT)/89-dated 5.12.89 has launched a scheme namely proficiency step up in the revised pay regulation-1989 which comes into force w.e.f. 1.1.86 Annexure RA-1. Main feature of this scheme was that the employees who have completed 8/18 years service in a post were...
Gian Singh Vs. Arjun Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2011
1. By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the orders of both the Courts below whereby they have refused to grant interim injunction be set aside. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) claims that he had constructed a house and alongwith the house, there is a projection (Chhaja) akin to a ‘Varandah’ which is projecting beyond the outer wall of the house. 2. The plaintiff claims that the respondentdefendant is now raising construction on the land below the Chhaja and he be restrained from raising this construction. The plaintiff also claims that he is owner in possession of the said land. 3. The defendant does not deny the existence of the Chhaja. According to him, the plaintiff constructed Chhaja, in question, about 20 years back with the consent of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant. 4. However, the defendant has taken a...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »