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.
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Damodar Dass
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. Accused Damodar Dass stands acquitted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’). 2. It is the case of the prosecution that ASI Chunni Lal (PW-9) was on routine patrol duty along with Head Constable Rajesh Kumar, Constable Mani Ram, Constable Anil Kumar and LHC Devi Singh at Pandoh Dam on 18-11-1987. They had checked 3/4 buses and when bus bearing No. HP-34-1146 reached it was stopped. Police party entered the bus and spotted the accused sitting on seat No. 39. He was holding a bag (Ex. P-1) which smelled like CHARAS a contraband substance. The bag was kept on his legs and concealed by him with his hands. Driver Sh. Kanshi(PW-2) and the conductor Sh. Hitesh Kumar (PW-1) were called and the accused questioned, who disclosed his name to be Damodar Dass. The accused was informed about the suspicion of carrying a contraband substance and consequently his ...
P.L. Gupta Vs. H.P.S.E.B and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, in order to maintain the clarity, the facts of CWP (T) No. 10484/2008 are being taken into consideration. 2. Petitioner L.D. Sharma was inducted into S.A.S. in the respondent-Board on 27.2.1984. Respondent-Board has framed a Scheme dated 31.1.1991 called “Time Bound Benefit of Promotional Scales”. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer on 29.7.1992. He was granted second time bound promotional scale of ` 10350-14900 on 22.12.2000 with effect from 27.2.2000 vide Annexure R-2. He made a representation on 4.5.2002 seeking stepping up of pay vis-à-vis Sh. Jagat Ram Sharma, who was junior to him. The Representation made by the petitioner was favourably considered and his pay was stepped up on 9.4.2003 with effect from 8.11.1996 vide Annexure R-5. His pay was also re-fixed vid...
Harbans Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. As per the pleadings, the petitioner was engaged as Beldar in the month of February, 1984. Thereafter, his designation was changed as Helper on 6th February, 1989. He was permitted to work as Pump Operator w.e.f. February, 1990. He has been regularized as Pump Operator on 2nd August, 2003. 2. Mr. Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client was required to be regularized as Pump Operator w.e.f. 1st April, 1998 and he was also entitled for conferment of work charge status as Beldar w.e.f. 1st January, 1994. 3. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that since the petitioner has not worked for 10 years uninterruptedly as Beldar, he could not be conferred work charge status of Beldar. He then argued that the petitioner has been regularized as Pump Operator w.e.f. 2nd August, 2003 after giving relaxation in educational qualification. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through th...
Kushal Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.6 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Sindasli. 2. Mr. L.N. Sharma has strenuously argued that respondent No.6 has failed to supply the disability certificate on or before the last date prescribed for submission of applications, i.e. 20.7.2005. 3. According to Mr. B.S. Ranjan, the disability certificate was supplied by respondent No.6 at the time of interview, i.e. 10.8.2005. 4. Mr. Vikas Rathore on the basis of the reply submits that respondent No.6 has not supplied the disability certificate on the last date of receipt of applications, however, temporary disability certificate was supplied by her on the date of interview. He then argued that the disability certificate was verified on 21.11.2005 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. It is evident from the documents placed on record that the petitioner also suffers from disabilit...
Dalel Singh Vs. Dharam Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the application under Order XXI, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the decree holder-respondent be dismissed. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant-present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘judgment debtor’) from interfering in his possession. The suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. An appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent was allowed and a decree was passed against the present petitioner. This decree has been challenged in RSA No.604 of 2009. 3. Sh.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor submits that since the decree was only for permanent prohibitory injunction, the application filed under Order XXXXI, Rule 5, CPC was withdrawn and thereafter, an application under Order XXXIX Rul...
Manmohan Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order Annexure A-3 whereby his services have been retrenched and has further prayed that the State of Himachal Pradesh be directed to appoint him to any class-IV post. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner worked as a helper in the Central Cooperative Consumer Store, Shimla. He joined on 26.4.1985. His services were regularized as Class-IV employee on 3.1.1994. Unfortunately, the Central Cooperative Consumer Store was placed under liquidation. Thereafter, a proposal was sent to the Managing Director of the H.P. State Cooperative Consumer Federation Ltd. (HIMFED) to take over the services of the Consumer Store. For some time, respondent No.4 ran the store and initially deployed 21 employees. Finally the services of the petitioner were terminated on 29.4.1995 and according to the petitioner the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act were violated. 3. Thereafter, a number o...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sudershan Kumar and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. State has appealed against the judgment dated 1 st January, 2007, of learned Special Judge, Solan, whereby respondents Sudershan Kumar and three others, who were tried for offences, under Sections 120-B, 409, 218 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, have been acquitted. 2. Respondent Sudershan Kumar was working as Incharge of H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation, Chambaghat, a suburb of Solan town, and respondent Ramesh Chand son of Bhagwan Singh (hereinafter referred to as Ramesh Chand - I) as helper in the aforesaid Corporation, in the month of May, 2003. Respondent Pawan Kumar Sahni is the proprietor of a flour mill, known as Giri Raj Atta Mill, at Deonghat, another suburb of Solan town. Respondent Ramesh Chand son of Sher Bahadur (hereinafter referred to as Ramesh Chand - II) was employed as Munshi by respondent Pawan Kumar Sahni, for assisting him in the affairs of the aforesaid flour mill. 3. Prosecution&...
Sh.Amar Nath Vs. Gurpal Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the same award. 2. Sh.S.K.Sood, learned counsel for the respondent submits that despite repeated requests, his client has not contacted him. This Court had twice passed orders directing the respondent-frather to appear in person but he has not appeared. Therefore, it appears that he is not interested in the custody of the minor. 3. This case revolves around the custody of the minor, Raman Kumar. Gurpal Singh, respondent was married to Smt.Tara Devi, daughter of Amar Nath, appellant. Out of this wedlock, one son named Raman Kumar was born on 5.12.1998. Thereafter, Smt.Tara Devi had gone to her parental house as she was to deliver another child. Unfortunately, she expired on 2.3.2001. The parents of Smt.Tara Devi had deposited a sum of Rs.12,562/- in Saving Bank Account No.1411 in Punjab and National Bank, Panjwar in the name of their daughter Smt.Tara Devi. It appears that to operate the said acco...
Vachan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since similar questions of fact and law are involved in the same. 2. Both the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders whereby alleged penalty of “dies-non” has been imposed upon them. Both the petitioners are lecturers in Government Senior Secondary School, Pahal, District Shimla. The Deputy Director (Education) conducted a surprise visit in the School on 18 th November, 2004 and found that as many as seven teachers including the two petitioners were absent. On perusal of the attendance register it was found that the Principal of the School had mentioned that the staff members were on leave. However, no proper leave applications were shown to the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director thereafter issued a letter dated 18 th November, 2004 to the Principal of the School stating that before any action is taken against the erring staff explanation of the staff members alongwith the comments may be sen...
Mollana Abdul Subhan Khan Vs. H.P. Wakf Board
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/defendant against the order of the learned District Judge, Shimla, dated 7.6.2010, passed in Civil Suit No. 8-S/1 of 2007, closing the evidence of the defendant by the order of Court. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. 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 plaintiff took only one date for producing the evidence and two witnesses were produced on 28.5.2008 and the evidence of the plaintiff/respondent was accordingly closed on the first date itself. Insofar as the petitioner/defendant is concerned, the first date fixed for evidence was 24.7.2008, when no witnesses were present nor PF was filed. On that date, the case was adjourned to 20.9.2008, on which date, still no steps were taken for service of the witnesses and adjournment was allowed subject to Rs.200/- as...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »