Himachal Pradesh Court April 2012 Judgments
Dr. Jogi Ram Gaur, S/O Shri Mam Chand and Others Vs. State of Himachal ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 23.12.2011, delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP (T) No. 10665 of 2008, whereby he allowed the writ petition and quashed the notifications dated 19.05.2003 (Annexure A-1), 12.06.1990 (Annexure A-2), 01.08.1994 (Annexure A-3), 30.07.1994 (Annexure A-5) and further quashed the notifications dated 06.08.1998 (Annexure R-3) and 21.03.2001 (Annexure R-4). 2. The whole dispute revolves around the appointment of the appellant, Dr. Jogi Ram Gaur, as Assistant Director/Deputy Director in the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL) of Himachal Pradesh. Admittedly, the appellant joined as Assistant Director with the H.P. Government on deputation basis on 02.04.1990. This post was upgraded and Dr. Gaur promoted and absorbed as Deputy Director on 01.08.1994. He, in fact, was promoted as Director of the SFSL, H.P. on ad hoc basis on 06.01.1998 and regularly promoted as Director on 21.03.2001. On 19.05.2003, the...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India and Others Vs. Krishan Lal District Bilaspur
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Surjit Singh, President: Oral: 1. This appeal by State Bank of India and its three functionaries, is directed against the order dated 26.06.2009 of Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, whereby in a complaint, under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, filed by respondent Krishan Lal, they have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 18,611/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint and also to pay Rs. 2000/- by way of costs. 2. Respondent Krishan Lal, filed a complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, alleging that he had a saving bank account with State Bank of India, Bilaspur, but in the passbook pertaining to that account, which had been issued to him, entries had not been correctly reflected. Complainant did not point out in the complaint, as to which entries had been incorrectly reflected and what according to him, should have been the cor...
Tag this Judgment!Tula Ram and Another Vs. M/S. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
Surjit Singh, President: Oral: 1. By this order we are disposing of two appeals the titles and particulars thereof are given in the title of this order. Both the appeals arise out of the same order, i.e. order dated 18.06.2010 of Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan and, therefore, they are being disposed of by common order. 2. Shri Tula Ram, appellant in F.A. No.271/2010 (hereinafter referred to as complainant) owned a Mahindra Pickup Van No.HP-16-0732. He got it insured with M/s Bajaj General Insurance Company Limited, appellant in Appeal No.311/2010 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party), against own damage in the sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-. The aforesaid amount was the value of the vehicle declared by the complainant himself. Vehicle met with an accident on 16.02.2008 and was extensively damaged. Accident was reported to opposite party by the complainant. A Surveyor was deputed by the opposite party, who assessed the loss at Rs. 78,010/-. Appellant was not sati...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, Through Its Branc ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.03.2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.13/2006 by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby the complaint is dismissed by holding that there is no merit in the complaint. Parties hereinafter are to be referred as per their status. 2. The facts of the case within narrow compass are that the complainant had got financed a truck No.HP-13-0274 from opposite party No.1 for an amount Rs. 2,50,000/- and was required to pay the said loan in 35 equal installments of Rs. 10,100/-. Further averments in the complaint were to the effect that he was regularly defraying the loan installments to the opposite parties, and could not defray the loan installment for the month of August, 2004, which was defrayed by him in the month of November, 2004 and thereafter did not commit any default. It was also alleged that despite continuously defraying the installments, the opposite parties,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›