Himachal Pradesh Court October 2012 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.
Rattan Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary (iph) Govt. ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner, who is working as Junior Engineer in the IPH has challenged his transfer from the Flood Protection Sub Division, Jalehra to the post of Assistant Engineer, IPH Circle, Una in place of private respondent No.2. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has served all over the State. In October, 2011 the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer and posted at IPH Headquarter at Shimla. The petitioner made a request that he be transferred from IPH Headquarter and after accepting his request he was transferred to Sub Division, Amb against a vacant post on 17.4.2012. The petitioner joined there on 24.4.2012. On 23.6.2012 the Government ordered the shifting of the Tubewell Sub Division, Amb to Flood Protection Sub Division, Jalehra, though according to the petitioner this order has still not been implemented. Now, the petitioner who was adjusted at Amb only after six months has been again transferred to Una only to accommodate the private respondent...
Manish Sharma, Kullu Vs. M/S. Ashok Leyland Finance, (a Division of In ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Surjit Singh, President (Oral), J. 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed. 2. Appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that he was approached by the functionaries of respondent Indusind Bank to purchase a commercial vehicle by raising loan from it (IndusInd Bank at Kullu), upon which he took loan of `8.25 lacs for the purchase of an Ashoka Leyland bus. He then purchased a bus at a cost of `10.00 lacs. As per loan agreement, the loan amount of `8.25 lacs, was to be returned in twenty monthly instalments of `24,000/- each and thereafter twenty six more monthly instalments of `20,000/- each. Soon after its purchase, the bus developed some serious defects, due to which the appellant could not ply it and earn any income. Conse...
Khemkaran, Son of Shri Rambhajan and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pra ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.44/2012, dated 22.06.2012, registered at Police Station, Bharari, District Bilaspur, under Sections 376,328, 342, 497, 498, 506, 382 IPC. 2. It has been stated that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The case has been registered on the complaint of Jaswant Singh filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.3, Ghumarwin. The complainant has alleged that his marriage was solemnized with prosecutrix in January, 2006. From the wedlock one male child was born. In October, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2011, petitioner came to his house for repairing work. On 10.05.2012, the petitioner abducted prosecutrix and had stolen `90,000/- including gold ornaments. The complainant lodged missing report of his wife. 3. The prosecutrix contacted the complainant on his...
State of Himachal Pradesh Through Principal Secretary (Home) to the Go ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 23.4.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Criminal Revision No. 17-Cr.R./10 of 2011 reversing order dated 18.7.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib in Cr.Misc. Application No. 317/4 of 2011. 2. On 18.4.2011 Rohit Kothal and Nitish Joshi while going to Dehradun via Paonta Sahib from Haryana were searched at Behral Barrier, Paonta Sahib by the Police and from their personal search currency notes worth Rs. 30 lacs were recovered, both of them were arrested under Sections 41, 109 Cr.P.C. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Paonta Sahib dropped the proceedings against both Rohit Kothal and Nitish Joshi vide order dated 11.5.2011. The police produced currency notes before the Executive Magistrate, who ordered seizure of the same under Section 102 Cr.P.C. The police after lapse of one month approached the court for initiating proceedings under Section 10...
Sh. Palo Ram Vs. Guari and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Kuldip Singh, J. 1. The plaintiff has come in second appeal against judgment, decree dated 13.11.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes Chamba, Division Chamba in Civil Appeal No.45 of 1999, reversing judgment, decree dated 31.7.1999 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba in Civil Suit No.5/95. Some of the parties originally before the trial Court have died, some names have been deleted, therefore, in this judgment the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants. 2. The plaintiff Palo Ram filed the suit for declaration that he has become owner of the land measuring 13-15 bighas, specifically described in the plaint and for possession of said land. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that suit land is entered in the name of the defendants as mortgagors and plaintiff as mortgagee as per jamabandi for the year 1989-1990. The suit land was mortgaged with the plaintiff much prio...
Krishan Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
V.K. Sharma, J. Oral: 1. The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayer:- It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 16.2.2010 passed by the Ld. Presiding Judge, Shimla, Annexure-P/6 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondent No.1 and 2 may kindly also be directed to assign the seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. November 1996 when the petitioner was initially engaged on work. 2. Background facts may be stated thus. The petitioner had joined the employment of the respondent-Irrigation and Public Health Department (in short I and PH Deptt.) as daily rated beldar in November, 1996. He was disengaged on 1.9.2001. On a dispute raised by him the matter was referred to the court for adjudication on 11.12.2002, wherein the following consent order dated 3.7.2006, Annexure P/6, was passed:- 3.7.2006 Present Shri Shashi Shirshu, Advocate for petitioner. Shri T.C. Kainthla, Ld. DDA for respondent with Shri Balbi...
Beasa Thakur Vs. State of H.P. Through Secretary Technical Education V ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1. The petitioner, by means of this petition, has laid challenge to the order, dated 1st September, 2012, Annexure P2, whereby she has been transferred from Mandi to Jogindernagar. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she is not an Instructor, but a Junior Tailoring Mistress and, therefore, she could not have been transferred in place of private respondent, who is an Instructor. Believing the submission of the petitioner to be correct, we had stayed the impugned order on 11.9.2012 in the following terms: CMP No. 11003 of 2012 Notice in the aforesaid terms. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she is actually Junior Tailoring Mistress but she has wrongly been shown as Instructor (Embroidery and Needle Work) and posted in place of respondent No.3, who actually is an Instructor (Embroidery and Needle Work) and the RandP Rules of the two posts are not the same. In view of the aforesaid submissions the impugned order is stayed in case the petitioner is not relieved till...
Bhadri and Others Vs. Smt. Suma Devi and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment, decree dated 24.4.2001 passed by learned District Judge. Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 34 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?yes of 1997 affirming judgment, decree dated 25.2.1997 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi in Civil Suit No. 91/90 (187/92). 2. Smt. Narvada daughter of Ghungar, mother of respondents had filed a suit for declaration and joint possession against appellants and one Hima that Will dated 28.1.1988 of late Ghungar in favour of appellants No. 1 and 2 is wrong, illegal and void. The further pleaded case was that suit land measuring 71-15-13 bighas in Mauza Panyali/146 Illaqua Bagra was recorded in the joint ownership and possession of Ghungar deceased and Hima. Smt. Narvada and appellant No.3 are the daughters, appellant No.1 is widow and appellant No.2 is son of deceased Ghungar and is entitled to inherit his estate. 3. Ghungar father of Smt. Narvada was an old man an...
Chander Mohan Negi and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Se ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
1. Petitioners have undertaken Junior Basic Teacher training from Government DIETs in the academic Session 2008- 2010. Case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that the respondent-State has appointed Primary Assistant Teachers against the post(s) of JBTs. According to the petitioners, the persons, who were appointed as Primary Assistant Teachers, even do not possess the minimum essential qualification of JBT. According to the petitioners, there are about 1461 candidates, who have undertaken JBT training from DIETs and 800 candidates have undertaken their JBT training from private institutions affiliated to the Himachal Pradesh Board of Education. 2. Case of the respondent-State is that the Primary Assistant Teachers were appointed, since the eligible/qualified candidates were not ready and willing to serve in tribal/hard areas. Further case of the respondent-State is that the Primary Assistant Teachers are serving for the last 8-9 years and if they are disengaged, it would result in ...
Sohan Lal Vs. AmIn Chand and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.02.2002, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1999. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for the sake of convenience), had filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent/proforma respondent/defendants (hereinafter referred Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. to as the defendants for the sake of convenience). The suit was originally filed against Shri Brij Lal, father of defendant No. 1, now represented by his legal representatives, Shri Amin Chand and Shri Tulsi Ram, who were impleaded as proforma defendants. According to the plaintiff, the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 85, 113, 115 and 120, measuring 0-05-83 hectares, situated in village Luharda was recorded in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »