Himachal Pradesh Court June 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.
Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking direction for release on bail in case he is arrested in FIR No.105, dated 23.3.2011 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 120B IPC registered with Police Station Paonta Sahib. 2. The case was initially listed on 6th May, 2011, thereafter the petitioner has been asked to attend the investigation. The petitioner has been charged for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120B IPC, registered with the Police Station, Paonta Sahib on 23.3.2011. This is a case of communal clash and also rioting and violence which ensued thereafter. Accused Sumit Bhardwaj, Nitish Kumar and Praveen Kumar were arrested on 23.3.2011 and accused Devinder Kumar, Rohit alias Sagar, Ajay Kimar alias Kachi and Gurpreet Singh were arrested on 29.3.2011. The case is at its investigation stage and the statements of various witnesses have been recorded. Spot witnesses are Shailender, Chetan, Narender Kumar, Sandip ...
Ranjeet Singh and ors. Vs. Polu Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. By means of this petition, the petitioners here-in-after referred to as the defendants had challenged the order dated 8.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the defendants and upheld the order of the learned trial Court, whereby the defendants were restrained from obstructing the passage which were shown to be passing through the land bearing Khasra No. 197. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents here-in-after referred to as the plaintiffs field a suit for declaration and injunction to the effect that a passage exists over Khasra No. 197 belonging to the defendants. According to the plaintiffs this passage is in existence since time immemorial and leads from their houses towards the agricultural land of the plaintiffs and other villagers. The defendants contested the suit and denied that any passage as claimed by the petitioners and shown in existence in the site plan existed on the spot. Accordi...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shri Bali Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. This petition by the State is directed against the judgment dated 28.8.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.71 of 2001 whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sadar, Bilaspur, H.P to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that eviction proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P Land Revenue Act, 1954 were initiated by the State against the plaintiff Bali Ram on the ground that he had encroached upon 7-19 bighas of land belonged to the Government comprised in Khasra Nos.420/414/1 and 415/319/2 situate in Village Sohra Biuns, Pargana Bahadurpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. After these proceeding were initiated, show cause notice was sent to the plaintiff as to why he be not evicted from the land. 3. The plaintiff appeared before the Collector and made the followin...
Dharam Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner was appointed as TGT (Arts), on adhoc basis, in the year 1981. He continued to work on adhoc basis, with breaks of a day or two, after every six months till 5.3.1986, when his services were terminated, because of a regular hand having been appointed against the post to which he was appointed. He was re-engaged, again on adhoc basis, w.e.f. 16.4.1986, when some vacancy of TGT(Arts) became available. His services were regularized w.e.f. 28.3.1987. 3. Petitioner, in the present petition, claims that he be treated to be in service during the period between 5.3.1986, when his services were terminated, on account of a regular hand having joined in his place, to 16.4.1986, when he was re-engaged on adhoc basis. 4. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that petitioner cannot claim that he be treated working as teacher, during the aforesaid period from 5.3.1986 to 16.4.1986, when his services were terminated on 5.3.1986 and he was re-appoin...
Avtar Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. Petitioner was working as Junior Assistant, in the office of the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, in the year 2005. He was sanctioned leave, from 27.1.2005 to 5.2.2005, with permission to prefix holidays, falling on 25th and 26th January, 2005. He was supposed to have departed from the office on 24.1.2005, after office hours. However, he left the office at 11.30 A.M. and before leaving the office, he marked his attendance in the register, in the column pertaining to time of departure, and the departure time was printed as 5 P.M. Also, he did not hand over charge of his seat to anybody, in writing. Further, one invitation card, addressed to His Excellency, the Governor, was with him, which he did not deliver to Private Secretary to the Governor, before proceeding on leave. 2. Petitioner was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid acts of dereliction of duty, which amount to misconduct. He denied the charge. Regular inquiry was held. He was found guilty of leaving the office at 11.30 A.M. and als...
Dev Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1, Dharamshala has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in terms of Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which provides: “27. Jurisdiction- (1) The Court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which- (a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or (b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or (c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent Court to grant a protection order and other oders under this Act and to try offences under this Act. (2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.” 2. The Court is not competent to try the case as none of the parties reside there. In this view of the matter, the petitioner submits that the entir...
Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. This petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for direction to be released on bail in case of arrest of the petitioner for offences under Section 435, 436, 147, 151 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered with Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. 2. The allegations are that an FIR against one Sumeet Bhardwaj, who has been involved in murdering three persons, was lodged with the Police Station at Paonta Sahib. One of the deceased is said to be in relation of the petitioner and he accompanied the family members to get the dead bodies from the Government Hospital, Paonta Sahib. At this stage, only mob violence concerning the involvement of the petitioner would be the material collected by the police in the investigation which is at the initial stage. The incident is one of rioting mob violence and communal clashes in which the petitioner herein is said to be inv...
Sita Ram Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) has challenged the order dated 17.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan whereby he dismissed the appeal of the defendant and confirmed the order dated 18.2.2010 passed by the learned Trial Court restraining the defendant from raising construction over the suit land during the pendency of the main suit. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the suit land bearing khasra No. 59/60 is a joint holding measuring 225-10 bighas. This land is jointly owned by a large number of co-owners. Admittedly the defendant started raising construction on a portion of the and even as per the averments made in para 3 of the plaint before the suit was filed 10 pillars had been raised and preparation was going on for laying a lintel. The grievance of the plaintiff-respondent was that the defendant is trying to grab the front and more valuable portion of the land touching the road. 3. Both the Courts below came to the c...
Asif Khan Vs. H.P. Tourism Development Corporation
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. Petitioner was working as Maitri-De-Hotel with the respondent-Corporation, in the year 2003, when a scheme for voluntary retirement of its employees, was introduced by the respondent, vide Annexure A-1. Petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 28.1.2004, vide request, copy annexure A-2. As per this request, he opted for voluntary retirement from 30th September, 2007. Managing Director of respondent-Corporation, however, vide order dated 24.12.2004, copy Annexure A-3, ordered his voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.12.2004. Petitioner sent a FAX letter on 27.12.2004, copy Annexure A-4, to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation, informing him that he could not have been retired w.e.f. 31.12.2004, as his option for voluntary retirement was from 30th September, 2007. 2. In the meanwhile, petitioner was relieved on 31.12.2004, pursuant to the order dated 24.12.2004, copy Annexure A-3. Petitioner then wrote a letter dated 5.1.2005, copy annexure R-2, withdrawing the FAX lett...
Jagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. The petitioner has stated in the petition that he joined respondent-department in the year 1982 as daily rated labourer and he has been regularized with effect from 20th September, 2006 as Sweeper vide Officer Order dated 5th September, 2006. The petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of ` 2520-4140/-. The petitioner has stated that his date of birth is March, 1949 and on completion of 58 years , the petitioner has been superannuated on 31st March, 2007, whereas, the petitioner should have been superannuated on 31st March, 2009. It has been stated that petitioner joined in the year 1982 and as per policy of the government as well as judgment passed by the Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled to work charged status with effect from 1990, whereas, he has been wrongly and illegally regularized with effect from 20th September, 2006 which is illegal and unjustified on the part of the respondents. GPF and DCRG have been released to the petitioner, but neither pension nor GIS Whether the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »