Himachal Pradesh Court August 2012 Judgments
Chuhru Ram and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Kuldip Singh, J. The order dated 28.4.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Chamba, H.P. in Sessions trial No.12/12/2011 framing charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC against petitioners has been assailed in the revision. 2. The further facts are that on the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Kartar Singh initially a case under Sections 279, 338 IPC was registered against the petitioners on the basis of which FIR dated 17.3.2010 was recorded. Kartar Singh was got medically examined. 3. The supplementary statement of Kartar Singh was recorded and the case was converted into Section 307 IPC. The prosecution case is that on 17.3.2010 police received secret information that Alto car and Mohindra Pick-Up were coming from Chamba side carrying some articles. A naka was put up at Sukdain Bain. Mohindra Pick-Up No.HP-73-0625 came in high speed. It was signaled to stop. instead of stopping the vehicle the accused negligently and rashly negotiated a turn in suc...
Tag this Judgment!Principal Govt. Polytechnic for Women, Kandaghat, Solan, H.P Vs. Relia ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Surjit Singh, President (Oral), J. 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent Attar Singh against it (the present appellant) and respondents No.1 and 2, i.e. Reliance General Insurance Limited, Chandigarh, through its Senior Manager and Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Khalini, Shimla, repectively, has been allowed and the appellant has been ordered to pay a sum of `2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money, on account of insurance money and `3,500/-, as litigation expenses. 2. Smt. Kamlesh Kumari wife of respondent Attar Singh, hereinafter referred to as complainant, was employed as sweeper, in the college of appellant. Government of Himachal Pradesh introduced a scheme, in terms of which, al...
Tag this Judgment!State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Rajesh Dhiman and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 28.12.2002, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in NDPS Case No. 03 of 2002, whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 09.01.2002, ASI Purshottam Dutt (PW-8), Constable Sunder Singh (PW-1), Constable Bhup Singh (PW-2) and Sh. Bhopal Singh (PW-7) went to Shamshar for traffic checking. At about 1:00 p.m., a motorcycle came from Kandughat side. The motorcycle was not bearing any registration number. The motorcycle was driven by Gulshan Kumar and pillion rider was Rajesh Dhiman. The pillion rider of the motorcycle was carrying a bag on his back. The motorcycle was signaled to stop. The documents of the motorcycle were demanded. The accused became frightened. In the meanti...
Tag this Judgment!Sat Pal and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Ho ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Surinder Singh, J. 1. Both these appeals are arising from the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, in Sessions Trial No.52 of 2010, decided on 2.4.2012/16.4.2012, whereby the appellants herein to be referred as the accused persons were sentenced under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- each with the default clause, for allegedly keeping in possession 404 grams of Charas in the recovered stuff of 1 Kg. 500 grams. 2. The case unfolded by the prosecution and accepted by the learned trial Court is that on 27.5.2010, PW8 Head Constable Parshotam Ram was on patrolling duty and detection of crime. Around 4.00 PM, they were present at a place known as Chiladhar, they spotted both the accused persons coming from the side of village Jibhi. On seeing the police party both of them got perplexed and tried to escape. The police beca...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Gupta, Proprietor Ganpati Steel Mills Vs. Naresh Mittal Be ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
1. Present appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 01.04.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby his petition for execution of order dated 14.05.2077, passed in his favour and against the respondent has been disposed of in the following terms:- In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the execution application is disposed of accordingly. The applicant is directed to return the defective parts of the rolling machine, as mentioned in Annexure C-1 within one month as of today, and thereafter, the respondent will make the payment of the defective parts, as assessed in Annexure C-1, within ten days from the date of receipt of the defective parts. The applicant is also held entitled for interest on the assessed amount as mentioned in Annexure C-1, at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of passing of the order in main consumer complaint i.e. 14.05.2007, till its realization, in...
Tag this Judgment!Nexus Health and Beauty Care Private Limited Vs. M/S National Electric ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Kuldip Singh, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing complaint No. RBT 47/3 of 2009/08 and order dated 17.3.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short Act). 2. The facts pleaded in the complaint are that the petitioners had issued a cheque dated 10.6.2008 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Parwanoo, Barotiwala Branch in favour of respondent for installing electricity fittings. The cheque on presentation to the bank was dishonoured with the remarks payment stopped by the drawer vide memo dated 14.7.2008. 3. The respondent contacted the petitioners, the petitioners assured the respondent that the cheque will be encashed and asked the respondent to present the cheque again. The respondent again presented the cheque but the cheque was dishonoured with remarks payment stopped by the drawer vide memo dated 23.8.2008. The respondent again cont...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Hindwan Vs. State Information Commission Through the Registrar, ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Deepak Gupta, J. Oral: 1. The short question involved in this petition is whether the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, has any power to impose penalty other than that prescribed in Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. To appreciate the rival contention of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 20(1) of the Act, which reads as follows:- 20.Penalties (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under subsection(1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading infor...
Tag this Judgment!Padam Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
Surinder Singh, J. Oral: 1. The appellant to be referred as the accused felt aggrieved by the judgment of his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions trial No. 13 of 2011 decided on 20.12.2011 for the offence punishable under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, for allegedly committing rape on a woman aged about 45 years who was mentally retarded, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- with the default clause. The benefit under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also accorded to the accused. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the husband of the prosecutrix had died about one and a half years ago from the date of the alleged incident. She is mentally retarded and living with her married daughter PW1 Smt. Godavari, who used to look after her. On 10.11.2010 at about 5 p.m. Smt. Godavari aforesaid had gone to cut the grass with ...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Chauhan and Others Vs. Hpseb Ltd. Through Its Director Personn ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Sanjay Karol, J. Oral: 1. With respect to similarly situated petitioners, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13th May, 2011, in CWP(T) No.12055 of 2008, titled as Shyama Devi versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another (Annexure P-1), observed as under: Petitioners father died in harness on 13.6.2003. Petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate basis after the death of her father. Petitioner was called upon to supply the certificate of non-employment and income certificate before 28.7.2004. She submitted the same to the competent authority. However, as per supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent-Board, the petitioner has been appointed as Clerk on daily rated basis on 2.2.2006 and she has joined her duties on 14.2.2006. 2. Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner being a graduate should have been offered the post of Clerk on regular basis instead of daily rated...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand Prasher Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary ( ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Rajiv Sharma, J. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-State invited Expression of Interest for private sector participation in Cafs in Himachal Pradesh, including Aabshar at Solan on outright sale basis. Last date of submission of offers was 29.11.2008 upto 4.00 P.M. Petitioner submitted bid on 27.11.2008. Bids were opened on 27.12.2008. Respondent No.3 has been issued letter of intent on 2.3.2010 and the sale deed was executed between respondent-State and respondent No.3 on 31.3.2010. 2. Mr. Bimal Gupta has strenuously argued that respondent No.3 was not at all eligible as per the mandatory conditions prescribed vide Annexure P-1. According to him, respondent No.3 had not submitted annual turnover and net worth for the last three years which was required to be duly audited and income tax return of last three financial years supporting the information. He then argued that respondent No.3 belongs to B.P.L. family. He also contended that one ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »