Himachal Pradesh Court December 2012 Judgments
Manjit Singh Vs. Rajinder Singh and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2012
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.6.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 119-CA/13 of 2000/1999, dismissed thereby the Civil Suit bearing No.68/1 of 1990/T- 23/1/1991 on reversal of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court decreed on 30.3.1999, the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, has approached this Court by filing the present appeal with the prayer to set aside the same. 2. The challenge to the judgment and decree impugned before this Court in the present appeal is on the ground, inter-alia, that the land entered in Khata-Khatauni No. 8min/33, Khasra No.491/304, measuring 5 Biswas, situated in village Shamsherpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, hereinafter referred to as the suit land, was ancestral and the family consisting of plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 being a joint Hindu family, was governed by Mitakshra Hindu law and the findings so recorded by the trial Court were err...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Principal Secretary ( ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-30-2012
Surinder Singh, J. Oral: 1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays to setaside the order dated 7.12.2005 Annexure P-9 of the Labour Commissioner and direct the respondents to refer the dispute of the petitioner to the Labour Tribunal, for its determination, as recommended by the Conciliation Officer. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that in the year 1970, he was appointed as Beldar on daily wages in H.P. Public Works Department in Sub-division Sunhi (B and R) Division Kangra District. His services were retrenched in the year 1985. According to him, he continuously worked for a period of 15 years and was drawing his salary of 90/- per month. Since he was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in short the Act, he was wrongly retrenched from service. Despite personal meetings with the concerned authorities and on sending various ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhian Dass, Vs. Mrs. Nokhi Devi Kararsu Phati and Kothi Kais
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment Yes quashing judgment dated 9.1.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2011, affirming order dated 15.12.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in Complaint No.309-I/2010. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short Act) against petitioner claiming her to be the wife of respondent. The petitioner for the last one year had physically and mentally tortured the respondent. A complaint was made to the Gram Panchayat where a compromise was affected but petitioner was turned out from matrimonial home in January, 2010. The petitioner filed reply, he denied marriage between the parties or parties lived as husband and wife. H...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev Kumar Vs. H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Respondent-Corporation issued an advertisement on 2.12.2009 whereby applications were invited for filling up the post of Trainee (Kitchen). The last date for receipt of application was 21.12.2009. According to the advertisement, minimum qualification required for filling up the post of Trainee (Kitchen) was 10+2 or equivalent with 1 years diploma in Food Production/Bakery from a recognized institute. Written test was held on 28.3.2010. Petitioner secured 96% marks. He was also called for interview on 5.5.2010. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner was not selected, which led to filing of CWP No. 6090 of 2010. The same was decided by this Court on 5.4.2011. Petitioner was permitted to make a representation to the Managing Director. He filed representation to the Managing Director on 23.4.2011. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected on 9.5.2011. 2. Mr. Subhash Sharma has vehemently argued that his client was fully eligible to be considere...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
The petitioner entered in the services of the respondents being appointed as Gangman under an order dated 01.03.1970. At the time of initial appointment, his date of birth recorded was 05.05.1950. A promotion thereafter was accorded to the petitioner as Helper with effect from 01.04.1971. By submitting a representation dated 02.07.1973, the petitioner made a request to the competent authority of the respondents to make necessary correction in his service record relating to his date of birth. As per the petitioner, his date of birth was 20.04.1951, but was erroneously recorded as 05.05.1950. After considering the application submitted by the petitioner, necessary correction in the service record was made on 01.09.1982 by recording 20.04.1951 as date of birth of the petitioner. The date of birth aforesaid was maintained in seniority list and all other relevant service records, however, under a communication dated 11.12.2009, the petitioner was sought to be retired from service with effec...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Jaswal Vs. Mrs. Anuradha
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Dev Darshan Sud, J. (oral) 1. The appellant, who is the husband, is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Una dismissing his petition under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The judgment reproduced paras 4 to 15 of the petition. The ground urged for annulment of marriage was that the respondent was suffering from lack of movement from hip joints; as a result she could not sit on her legs, cannot work while sitting cannot stand up from the sitting position and cannot perform day to day work. She is not physically fit. This fact was discovered at the time of consummation of marriage which had taken place after great difficulty. The respondent was taken to the doctor as also to the Civil Hospital, Una for consultation and for treatment from an orthopedic surgeon who opined that this is a defect which she suffers from birth and it is incurable. This is in short the pleadings of the petitioner who seeks annulment of the marriage on the ground that h...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
Rajiv Sharma, J. Oral: 1. Petitioner retired as PET on 03.06.2011. He was re-employed as PET on 01.07.2011 on the basis of notification, dated 23.09.2010. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he has not been paid vacation salary for the period w.e.f. 27.07.2011 to 10.08.2011 and 22.10.2011 to 27.10.2011. The re-employment of the petitioner is governed by the notification, issued on 23.09.2010. The objective of the policy of re-employment, is to ensure availability of teachers and all other officers during academic session with a view to provide quality education in the State. 2. The expressions Academic Session, End of Academic Session, Commencement and end of Academic Session, Other Officers, Policy, Re-employing Authority, Re-employment, Remuneration and Teachers, have been defined in the policy. The pay of re-employed teachers/other officers is fixed in terms of instructions of Finance Department, dated 19.04.2010 read with instructions, dated 01.12.1988 and 08.09.1999, p...
Tag this Judgment!Narender Pal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). The appellant challenges his conviction under Sections 452 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 452 I.P.C. and fine of Rs.5,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs.20,000/- for offence under Section 376 I.P.C . 2. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix PW1, who is minor and student of 8th Class studying in Senior Secondary School, Ghumarwin, had been raped by the accused. 3. The case of the prosecution is that F.I.R. No. 133 of 2011 (Ext.PW9/B) was lodged in Police Station, Ghumarwin on the statement Ext.PW1/A of the prosecutrix under Section 154 Cr. P.C. The narration of the incident is thus: 4. The complainant was a student of 8th Class who had lost her father and mother was Pagal (mentally unstable). Her elder brother was died. She has two brothers Praveen Kumar and Mahinder Pal, who were working as carpenter and welder respe...
Tag this Judgment!State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) 1. The acquittal of the respondents passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been challenged in the present appeal. Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment. 2. Heard and gone through the record. The undisputed facts are that: (i) The deceased Smt. Vijay Bharti was married to the respondent Rakesh Kumar on 5th December, 1997. She committed suicide by partially hanging in her room on 4.1.2002 at her residence at Sanjauli, where she was residing with her husband, parents in law and the other respondents. (ii) Respondents No. 2 and 3 Miss. Reena Sharma and Miss Monika Sharma are unmarried sisters of respondent No. 1. (iii) Respondent No. 1 was Draughtsman (Civil) in HPSEB, Shimla. (iv) Respondent No. 2, Miss Reena Sharma is post graduate in Engineering and B.Sc B.Ed and for some time she remained as teacher i...
Tag this Judgment!Diwan Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-2012
Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The appellant challenges his conviction under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter IPC) sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under section 376 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5000/- for offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The genesis of the prosecution case is that Ext.PW1/A, which is First Information Report No. 87 of 2008, filed by Kumari Reena Devi with Police Station Karsog on 22.5.2008 narrating therein that she was 16 years old and residing with her maternal uncle Jhabe Ram and was student of 10th class. About 5-6 days prior to Shivratri, the accused entered the cowshed during the day time where she was watering the cattle and committed rape on her. When she tried to raise a hue a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›