Himachal Pradesh Court September 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.
Dharmender Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Principal Secre ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Oral: Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. By means of the present writ petition, following reliefs have been claimed: i) That impugned communication dated 20.10.2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That contract of the petitioner may kindly be renewed as the post is still lying vacant as other similar situated persons have been allowed to continue. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. iii) That the respondents may be directed that after re-engaging the petitioner, he may be given all consequential benefits. 2. The factual position as emerges from the perusal of the record is that the petitioner was appointed as driver on contract basis in the year 2003 in the office of 3rd respondent initially for a period of one year renewed subsequently on year to year basis. He was deputed with the vehicle attached to the office of Chief Medical Officer, Haroli, District Una. On 16/17.10.2006, a criminal case under Section 307 and 308, IPC read with Sectio...
M/S Vaishnavi Kosmeticos Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Assistant Legal Manage ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member: 1. This complaint had been filed by M/s Vaishnavi Kosmeticos Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the complainant, who is in the business of manufacturing of detergent powder, detergent cakes, toiletries etc. since the month of June, 2007, against the Oriental Insurance Company, who is having its various offices at Ambala, Shimla, Parwanoo, Delhi, Chandigarh etc., hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties No. 1 to 5, for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, wherein, the complainant had claimed the following relief in its favour i.e.:- (i) Rs. 36,30,132.00/- lacs alongwith 18% interest; (ii) The loss of produce to the tune of Rs. 53 lacs with 18 % interest; iii) Compensation for damages for delay on account of loss in business of Rs.5 lacs with 18% interest; (iv) Compensation for harassment and mental agony caused by the opposite parties to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs with interest and Compensation as liti...
Smt. Nitu Bal Vs. State of H.P. Through Secretary (Panchayati Raj) to ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2012
Oral: Whether an authorized officer to hear an election petition is authorized under law to recount the votes and declare that another person who has secured the majority of votes has been elected, is the moot question arising for consideration in this case. 2. Sections 174, 175 and 175(A) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, provide for procedure. The provisions read as follows:- 174. Decision of the authorized officer.- (1) Where an election petition has not been dismissed under section 165, the authorized officer shall inquire into the election petition and at the conclusion of the inquiry shall make an order- (a) dismissing the election petition; or 1[(b) declaring the election of all or any of the elected persons to be void; or] 1[(c) declaring the election of all or any of the elected persons to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected.] (2) At the time of marking an order under sub-section (1) the authorized officer shall also make an order,- ...
H.S. Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
Sanjay Karol, J Oral: 1. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.8.2012 passed by Special Judge (Forests), Shimla in case No.2-S/7 of 2009, titled as State of H.P. versus H. S. Thakur and others. In terms of the impugned order, petitioner stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code alone, whereas co-accused stand charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 468, 415/420, 471, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, one of the accused person has also been charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Before I deal with the legal issue, facts leading to the filing of challan before the trial Court, as noticed by the Court, are reproduced herein below: I have gone through the Charge-sheet and other documents. As per prosecution case Sh. H.S. Thakur was Registering and Licencing Authority (Rural), Shimla and Sh. Kamal Kumar Rohal was ...
Vijay Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Kurian Joseph, C.J. 1. The validity of Section 3-A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the validity of the proceedings initiated under the Act for eviction of the petitioners are the subject matter of these writ petitions. All the petitioners have been lessees of Brigade Bazaar in Yol Cantonment in District Kangra. Though, there is dispute on the nature of lease, the fact remains that all of them have been in occupation of the premises. They were all issued notices in the year 2009 under Section 4 of the Act on various grounds including the ground that the land is required for military use. The petitioners had submitted their reply(s), as well. However, without passing any final order under Section 5 of the Act, they were issued notice under Section 3-A of the Act. 2. Section 3-A of the Act, reads as follows: 3-A. Eviction from temporary occupation.- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 4 or section 5, if the estate officer, after making s...
Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
1. By means of the present writ petition, the following reliefs have been claimed: 1. That the respondents may be directed to favourably consider the case of the petitioner for the appointment as clerk on compassionate ground with time bound schedule. 2. That the respondents may be directed to appoint petitioner on compassionate ground. 2. The complaint is that the father of petitioner late Shri Lashkari Ram died in harness on 26.12.2003 while working as Drawing Master, however, irrespective of his having made an application for employment on compassionate ground under the policy framed by the 1st respondent, he has not yet been given the appointment irrespective of the direction of erstwhile Administrative Tribunal dated August 7, 2007 in O.A. (M) No. 145/2007, Annexure P-4. 3. It is seen from the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents that virtually there is no denial to the factual position, such as, father of the petitioner having died in harness while workin...
M/S. Jeewan Jyoti Apple Associates Advocate, Delhi Vs. Sh. Bhawani Sin ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member (Oral), J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.08.2009 passed in C.C. No. 32/09 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kullu, H.P, whereby, the complaint was allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs,40,174/- to the complainant on account of sale proceeds of apple boxes with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization and also to pay Rs 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. Litigation cost had been quantified at Rs,1000/-. Parties are hereinafter referred as per their status in the complaint. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that the complainant is owner in possession of fruit orchard named and style as Bhuwani Orchards (Padhar) Khdyar. The complainant stated that the opposite party No.1 is apple dealer at Delhi and running business in the name and style of M/s Jeewan Jyoti Apple Associates and opposite party No.2 ...
Amarjeet Singh Kawatra, Shimla Vs. M/S. Oriental Insurance Company Lim ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
Surjit Singh, President (Oral), J. (Retd.). 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking issuance of directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,71,000/- by way of insurance money, Rs.12.00 lacs on account of mental and physical harassment, `5.00 lacs for loss of business and business opportunity and Rs. 12,000/- on account of litigation expenses with interest @ 18% per annum pleading the following cause of action. 2. Complainant purchased a Mahindra Logan car for a sum of Rs.4,94,501/- against Annexure C-1, from opposite party No.2. The manufacturer of the vehicle is opposite party No.3. Soon after its purchase, the car had been insured by the complainant with opposite party No.1 in the sum of Rs.4,71,000/-. Insurance was got done on 29th February, 2008. Four days later, i.e. on 3rd March, 2008, when the vehicle was being driven by the complainant in Shimla town, near Ayurvedic Hospital, he noticed in the ri...
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another Vs. Ramesh Chand
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. The challenge herein is to the judgment dated 4th July, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.7464 of 2010, whereby award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh on 30.7.2010 in reference No. I.D. 301/2004, has been upheld to the extent of reinstatement of the respondent-workman with seniority over and above the five workmen engaged afresh in the year 1994 and 100 in the year 1995 i.e. after his disengagement whereas to the extent of award of back wages quashed. 2. The legality and validity of the impugned award has been assailed on the ground, inter alia, that there was no tangible evidence produced by the respondent-workman before the Tribunal below and as such, the award as a whole, should have been quashed and set aside. Further, according to the petitioner-company, since the respondent-workman was a casual labourer and not engaged through employment exchange and rather his engagement was a back d...
The Napier Agritech, Through Its General Manager (Seed Division) and A ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Retd.) Surjit Singh, President Oral: 1. By this common order, we proceed to dispose of 23 appeals, particulars whereof are given in the title hereof, as all of them are directed against similar orders, i.e. orders dated 10.08.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, passed separately in 23 complaints, in which the questions of law and facts raised, were identical. 2. Respondent No.1 in 22 appeals and respondents No.1 and 2 in F.A. No.293/2011 filed separate complaints, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, against the present appellant, its Regional Manager, Manimajra, Chandigarh and Anil Kumar Sood, respondent No.2 in 22 appeals and respondent No.3 in F.A. No.293/2011, alleging that they had purchased hybrid tomato seeds branded as Honey 196 from respondent No.2 Anil Sood, who was a dealer of the appellant, on the assurance of said respondent Anil Kumar Sood that plants would...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »