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.
State Bank of Patiala, Through Its General Manager and Others Vs. Sham ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
V.K. Sharma, J. 1. The present letters patent appeal arises out of judgment dated 22.08.2007, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this court in CWP No. 517 of 1999, allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 against the appellants and proforma respondent No.2 for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- (i) That the impugned orders Annexures PB, PO, PQ, PS and PT may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties at the same place and at the same post on which he was performing his duties prior to the issue of impugned order Annexure PQ. (ii) In the alternative, respondents may be directed to hold denovo enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law. 2. The operative part of the impugned judgment dated 22.08.2007, is as follows:- Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The annexures P-Q, dated 17.3.1999 and P-T, dated 3.6.1999 are quashed and set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to...
Madan Lal Sharma Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh Through Its Secreta ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. By means of this writ petition filed in the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and on its abolition transferred to this Court, following reliefs have been claimed:- (i) That the respondent be directed to take over the services of the applicant, (ii) That the respondent be directed to pay to the applicant all the consequential benefits, such as pay etc., (iii) That the respondent be directed to pay the interest of 18% p.a. 2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher after his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange in Indira Gandhi Memorial Middle School Amlehar, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, a privately managed School on 6.6.1985. He continued to discharge his duties as such in the School till 1990 when on taking over the School by the State Government, his services were dispensed with. At the time of taking over the school, the applicant as well as other teachers of the school were assured ve...
M/S. Roshan Lal, Government Contractor Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh T ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
Rajiv Sharma, J. Respondent-State invited proposals from private investors for setting up Small Hydro Electric Projects upto 5 MW capacity for 35 identified sites. The last date of receipt of proposals was 31.12.2010. However, the same was extended upto 20.1.2011. Petitioner submitted proposal on 20.1.2011 for Machhad-II (2 MW) project. Respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner on 5.5.2012 for removing deficiencies, more particularly, with regard to computation of net worth. The last date for removal of deficiency was 26.5.2012. However, the same was extended upto 22.6.2012. Petitioner claimed that he removed the deficiencies and submitted the proposal alongwith Annexure P-5 on 22.6.2012. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that though he has supplied the documents on 22.6.2012, but his proposal has been rejected on 25.6.2012. 2. Mr. D.N. Sharma has vehemently argued that the action of the respondents of rejecting the proposal of the petitioner on 25.6.2012 is illegal, arbi...
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Krishna Kant, ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Surjit Singh, President (Oral). 1. Respondent served through his brother, as per report of the Process Server. Nobody appears for him. Hence, proceeded exparte. 2. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 3rd May, 2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against the appellant by respondent Anku Sood, has been allowed and direction given to the appellant to pay a sum of 2.53 lacs, on account of additional insurance money, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, and also to pay 3,000/-, as compensation and 2,500/-, as costs. 3. Respondent owned a truck, which he got insured for a sum of 10.00 lacs, with the appellant. The period of insurance was from 08.05.2009 to 07.05.2010. Earlier the truck was insured with some other insurance company, in the sum of 10,16,500/-, and on expiry of the period of the pr...
M/S Tapan Motors, Solan Vs. Sh. Vikram Chauhan, Sirmaur and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Surjit Singh, President (Oral), (Retd.), J. 1. Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them and respondents No.2 and 3 by respondent No.1 Vikram Chauhan, has been allowed and they (the appellants) have been ordered to refund an amount of Rs.5,500/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/-. 2. Respondent No.1 Vikram Chauhan wanted to purchase a Santro Car, for which he approached the appellants. He did not have the ready cash and so he asked the appellants as to from which bank, loan could be raised. Respondent No.1 was told that loan could be taken from the State Bank of Patiala, though respondent No.1 himself planned to make application for loan to the State Bank of India. On being advised by the appellants, to seek loan fro...
Rakesh Negi Vs. Sai Automobiles, Through Its Proprietor and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral: Surjit Singh, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the complainant is directed against the order dated 03.05.2010 of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been dismissed on the ground that he failed to produce any evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. 2. Appellant purchased a vehicle known as Trax Cargo, on 09.01.2007, from Rampur branch of Sai Automobiles, respondent No.1, against Annexure C-1. He paid a price of Rs.4.80 lacs. There was three years warranty for the vehicle. Within a few days of the purchase of the vehicle, it started giving trouble. It pertained to the ignition of the vehicle as also the excessive fuel consumption. Matter was brought to the notice of the respondent No.1, who allegedly replaced the fuel pump saying that the same was defective. Vehicle gave satisfactory service but only for a...
Mehar Singh Vs. H.P. Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing D ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2012
Rajiv Sharma, J. Oral: 1. Petitioner was appointed as Conductor on regular basis on 25.3.1977. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 2010. He was further promoted to the post of Inspector on 16.6.2011. 2. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that his date of birth was 20.4.1955 and not 20.4.1954, as recorded in the service record. He came to know that his date of birth has been recorded as 20.4.1954 when the seniority list was issued on 25.3.2011. Thereafter, he made representation on 3.6.2011. The representation was not decided by the respondentcorporation. He filed CWP No. 1804/2012 in this Court. The same was decided on 23.4.2012. Respondent No.2 was directed to decide the representation. The same was decided on 28.4.2012. 3. Petitioner has placed reliance upon Annexure P-1 whereby his date of birth has been shown as 20.4.1955. It is evident from the service record placed on record that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 20.4.1954. It cannot ...
Rajender Kumar Son of Sh. Hitender Kumar Vs. State of Hp Through Secre ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral) This petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 for releasing truck No. HP-65-6363 in favour of the petitioner. 2. It has been stated that petitioner is a registered owner of truck No. HP-65-6363 (for short Rs.truck unless context is otherwise). On 16.8.2010, petitioner sent the truck alongwith its driver by loading government supply of 260 bags of cement from Dhanotu, District Mandi to Executive Engineer, IPH Division Kaza. 3. The petitioner came to know later on that truck has been impounded by the police in connection with FIR No. 17 dated 23.8.2010, registered at Police Station, Kaza, under sections 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act, sections 379, 465, 120-B IPC and section 7B(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent No. 3 after impounding the truck alongwith goods handed over the truck to respondent No. 2 by taking it to be a case involving offence under th...
Hans Raj Vs. Sharwan Kumar and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2010 rendered by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 17-G/XIII/2009 and cross-objections No. 39-G/XIII/2009. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the appellant-defendant Hans Raj and Babu Ram in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.II, Dehra. According to the plaintiff, suit land comprising Khata No. 237, Khatauni No. 352, Khasra Nos. 1251 and 1264, kita 2, area 0-32-30 hectares, as per Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 of Muhal Kado, Mauza Gangot, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. was recorded in the joint ownership and possession of the parties. Defendants are bent upon to occupy the suit land without the consent of plaintiff. They ...
Darshan Singh Vs. Maya Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.05.2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 2-N/13 of 2002. 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) has filed a suit for specific performance and injunction against the respondent defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant for the sake of convenience). According to the plaint, the defendant owned land comprised in Khasra No. 743/2/134, measuring 4 biswas, situated in Mauza Devi Nagar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. alongwith an old dilapidated house. On 15.10.1999, the defendant executed an agreement for sale of the land alongwith the house for a consideration of Rs.1,65,000/-. The document was executed in the presence of witnesses. The defendant received a sum of Rs.25,000/- as ea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›