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.
Sita Ram and ors. Vs. Daulat Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-01-2011
1. This case reflects a shocking state of affair where a Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge has virtually dis-regarded and set at naught the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court as well as a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that two suits were filed. Civil Suit No.5/1 of 1983 was filed on 6.1.1983 by Het Ram only. In this suit, he claimed the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants Daulat Ram and Hira Singh from interfering in the suit land. According to him, Chet Ram defendant No.3 was recorded as non-occupancy tenant over the suit land in which Smt.Mathi widow of Nirma had half share and Keshav Ram and Daulat Ram had 1/4th share each. It is alleged that Chet Ram acquired proprietary rights of Keshav Ram and Daulat Ram and thereafter Chet Ram delivered possession of the suit land to the plaintiff Het Ram. This suit was contested by the defendants. 3. Second suit being Civil Su...
Smt. Mansha Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-01-2011
1. The petitioner has prayed that oral termination of her services on 25.11.2005 by respondent No.3 is wrong, illegal, the respondents may be directed to pay salary of ` 300/- for the month of November, 2005 to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Sweepress on 7.11.1996 by respondent No.3 on PTA fund on salary ` 300/- per month in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Sandhol. 3. The petitioner continuously served on the post of Sweepress in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Sandhol, but all of a sudden, her services were terminated orally by respondent No.3 on 25.11.2005 without assigning any reason. It has been stated that oral termination dated 25.11.2005 of petitioner is wrong, illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice. It has been stated that the appointment of the petitioner was confirmed/approved by the Parents Teachers Association. The services of the petitioner were terminated after nine years without assigning any reason. ...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Yashpal
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-01-2011
1. Respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court as such the State preferred the present appeal. 2. Prosecution case is that on 11.12.1999 at about 7 p.m. at the place known as “Sera” on a public highway, PW1 Virender Kumar was hit by the tractor bearing registration No. HP-21-1941 which was being allegedly driven rashly and negligently by the respondent. After sustaining injury, he was removed to the Hospital for treatment where he was attended upon by PW6 Dr. Praveen Kumar. He noticed as many as three injuries on his person and was referred to radiological examination with respect to injury No. 1. As per report of the Radiologist, PW 8 Dr. P. C.Verma there was a fracture on right tibia middle third part of the leg of PW1 Virender Kumar. 3. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent. 4. Notice of accusation was put to the re...
Tulsi Ram Vs. Kartar Chand
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-01-2011
1. This appeal has been directed against judgment, decree dated 1.3.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 128-P/XIII-2005 affirming judgment, decree dated 22.8.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Court No.2, Palampur in Civil Suit No. 137 of 2000. 2. The appellant had filed a suit for possession against the respondent regarding Shop No. 12 situated in Municipal area, opposite Sainik Rest House, Palampur. The case of the appellant is that initially the shop was allotted to one Duni Chand and thereafter on the basis of an agreement with Duni Chand, the appellant came in possession of the shop. The appellant lateron came to be entered as allottee of the shop and he has been paying the rent to the Municipal Council including all other charges. The further case of the appellant is that the respondent approached him for allowing him to work in the shop as Scooter Mechanic. The appellant allowed the respondent to run the shop as license...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ram Dass and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-01-2011
1. The respondents were charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. State felt aggrieved, as such filed the present appeal. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that PW2 Malook was the guest of the complainant Gulam Hussain and stayed for the night in his house in one of the rooms. The wife of the complainant had gone to some other village to attend ‘Jagaran’. Complainant and his son slept in another adjacent room. The door was open, it being a summer time, but its “Jali door” was closed having bolt or lash. 3. During the intervening night of 9th /10th May, 2003, around 12.30 a.m. when complainant Gulam Hussain was sleeping alongwith his son, he heard the sound of walking of someone in the verandah. On this, he got up and asked as to who was there. Immediately thereafter the respondents entered in his room holding a Danda but caught hold of him from his neck a...
Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-01-2011
1. The appellant has directed the present appeal against his conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.7-N/7 of 2009, on 29.7.2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the offences mentioned hereunder:- Offence under Section And Sentence: 1. 354 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of `5,000/-. In default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. 366 I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and fine of `10,000/-. In default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. 506 I.P.C. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of `5,000/-. In default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 4. Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act,1986. - Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of `2,000/-. In default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 5. Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 20...
Smt. Sneh Lata Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-01-2011
1. An Original Application was filed in the year 2005 before the then Tribunal and on its abolishment, it was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T). Succinctly, the present petition has been filed on the premise that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner while reducing her pay, consequently the pension vide order dated 16th March, 2004 (Annexure A-1). 2. Heard and went through the record. 3. The petitioner was working in the Education Department of the respondents-State, in her capacity as JBT Teacher w.e.f. 7th September, 1964. She retired from the service on 31.12.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. 4. The petitioner was promoted as Centre Head Teacher w.e.f. 19.10.2000 and her basic pay was fixed at `8,375/-, but however, under F.R.22 (i) & (ii), it was raised to `8,650/- after allowing the annual increment as on 1.1.2001. Thereafter, the provision of F.R. 22 (c ) was invoked and her pay was further raised to `8,925/- as on 1.2.2001 with nex...
Keshav Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-01-2011
1. The appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2001 decided on 15.7.2003 by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, under Sections 452, 376 IPC directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 376 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for one month under Section 452 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has also ordered that whole of the amount of fine shall be payable to prosecutrix on realization. The appellant shall get the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that prosecutrix mostly used to remain alone in her house with her three children since her husband used to work as labourer and usually remained outside the house. On the night intervening 7th and 8th August, 2000, the prosecutrix was alone in her house, h...
Shri Bahadur Singh Vs. State of H.P. Through Collector Kinnaur and ors ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-01-2011
1. Present Regular Second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’ against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge on 23.10.2000 in civil appeal No. 18 of 2000, whereby the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1999 of the Senior Sub Judge in civil Suit No. 35-1 of 1997 were set aside. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether in the absence of the prescription of any procedure under Section 16 for the taking/transferring the possession of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the mere fact of making the award and making the payment of the compensation to the original owner of the land as per the award without taking any kind of positive step by the Collector for taking possession would ipso-facto tantamount to taking/transferring possession of the acquired land on the sole basis of a suo-motu unilateral paper entry in...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar Gupta
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-01-2011
1. Learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the respondent in Police Challan No.2-2 of 2007, on 6.10.2010 till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of ` 3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. State filed the instant appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal procedure, for enhancement of the sentence against the respondent. 2. Notice of enhancement was issued. The respondent has filed his reply. He did not challenge his conviction, but submitted that he is leading a noble life now. He has two minor daughters and is earning his livelihood by honest means. 3. Heard and gone through the record. 4. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 7.9.2006, at about 10.00 A.M., complainant PW1 Sarla Devi was alone at her residence. Respondent came to her residence for the purpose of selling Pitambri powder and told her that this is used for brightening the vessels. She asked him to give one packet, but he refused on the pretext that it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›