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.
Atma Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. The challenge, in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions Trial No.29 of 2007, decided on 29.9.2008, whereby the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of `5,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, with the default clause. 2. Precisely, the case of the prosecution can be stated thus. The prosecutrix is a young-lady of 26 years suffering from mental retardation since her childhood. She was living with her parents in village Kinja, District Kullu. Her brother is also mentally retarded but two other sisters are already married. (ii) On 13.2.2007 PW5 Tegu Ram, father of the prosecutrix, alongwith his wife went to ‘Puid temple’ to pay obeisance leaving behind the prosecutrix and her brother in the house. Around 4.00 pm, her brother was not present in the house. The prosecutrix went to a nearby water-s...
Prem Lal Vs. Shri Kant Baldi and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for initiation of proceedings as per law against the respondents for wilfully disobeying the judgment dated 9.12.2009 in CWP(T) No. 3082 of 2009. It has also been prayed that the respondents may be punished to upkeep the majesty of law in highest esteem and to secure ends of justice. 2. It has been stated that CWP(T) No. 3082 of 2009 was decided on 9.12.2009 by this Court with directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal within a period of eight weeks from the date of judgment dated 9.12.2009. The petitioner represented his case to the respondents vide application dated 24.12.2009. The petitioner even visited the office of the respondents many times but without any result. The petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act. The information was given to the petitioner in March, 2010 in response to his application that the case of the petitioner was under th...
Vidya Sagar Sood Vs. Hir Singh Lal and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. This petition is totally misconceived. The petitioner (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit before the learned trial Court claiming that he be declared to be owner in possession of the suit land, which admittedly is part of Rekong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, District Kinnaur, a scheduled tribe area. The plaintiff also prayed that proceedings under Section 5 of the H.P. Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1968 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur be set-aside and quashed. 2. Admittedly, the land in question forms part of the tribal area. The plaintiff claims that he had purchased the land from Amar Chand father of defendant No.1 Hir Singh. The plaintiff admittedly does not belong to the scheduled tribes. An important question arose whether the plaintiff could have purchased land from a tribal or not. The plaintiff, no doubt, by means of amendment of the suit, has alleged that the defendant’s father was not a tribal but this is a question also to be decided by the a...
Picky Sharma Vs. Bhagwati Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. This petition raises an interesting question as to the procedure which a Civil Court has to follow in cases governed by order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,25,000/- under Order XXXVII, CPC. Thereafter, notice of this suit was issued on 27.7.2010 and while issuing notice, the learned Trial Court specifically directed that the defendant be served by way of notice mentioned in Appendix B Form No.4, CPC. This is the form prescribed for service of notice under Order XXXVII. The defendant was served and moved an application on 23.8.2010 under Order XXXVII sub rule (3), Rule 5, CPC for leave to defend the suit. The plaintiff filed an application under order XXXVII, Rule 3, sub Rule (4), CPC for permission to serve the summons for judgment upon the defendant. This application was filed on 28.8.2010 and was accompanied...
Basant Singh Vs. H.P.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2011
1. The petitioner has assailed the letter dated 21.07.2004 Annexure PA vide which he was directed to get the issue settled from appropriate authorities regarding the recoveries of house rent. The petitioner has also challenged Annexure PB dated 15th July, 2004 vide which a demand of ` 27,856/- has been raised on account of retention of house by petitioner beyond the permissible limits which was allotted to the petitioner. 2. The respondents in the reply have stated that petitioner failed to vacate the house up to 17.07.2004. He was in an unauthorized occupation of the Board’s accommodation. The petitioner was liable to pay penal rent amounting to ` 23,534/- for the period 01.05.2004 to 17.07.2004. It has been stated that an amount of ` 10,983/- has already been recovered from the salary of the petitioner and balance amount of `12,551/- was still payable when the reply dated 09.12.204 was prepared. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per his instruction...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›