Himachal Pradesh Court January 2013 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.
Suboth Sharoti Vs. State of H.P. Through Principal Secretary (Transpor ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner is a proprietor of National Bus Service. He has been granted stage carriage permit for the route commencing from Nagrota via Kangra-Jassur-Chaki and back to Palampur, thereafter via Nagri and halt at Nagrota Bagwan. Respondent No.4 was also issued stage carriage permit bearing route permit No. 154/R/Stg/06. The stage carriage permit issued to respondent No.4 initially was through Pathankot to Kahanphatt via Nagrota Bagwan. The total kilometers which were covered under the stage carriage route permit issued to respondent No.4 were 234, out of which 200 KMs were for National Highway and 34 KMs were for rural roads. Respondent No.4 submitted an application for modification of his route permit from Pathankot to Palampur via Kangra-Nagrota Bagwan and Parour. The request of respondent No.4 was allowed and he was allowed to ply his bus from Pathankot-Palampur via Kangra-Nagrota-Parour by the Regional Transport Authority, Dharamshala in its meeting held on 1/2.11...
State of H.P Vs. Des Raj
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Deepak Gupta, J 1. An interesting question which arises in this appeal is- What is opium poppy, opium derivative, poppy straw and opium within the meaning of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. To understand the issues raised before us and the rival contentions of the parities, it would be pertinent to refer to the definition of the opium, opium derivative, opium poppy, poppy straw and poppy straw concentrate in Sections 2(xv), 2(xvi), 2(xvii), 2(xviii) and 2(xix) of the Act, which reads as follows:- 2(xv) opium means- (a) the coagulated juice of the opium poppy; and (b) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy but does not include any preparation containing not more than 0.2 per cent of morphine: 2(xvi) opium derivative means- (a) medicinal opium, that is, opium which has undergone the process necessary to adapt it for medicinal use in accordance with the requirements of the...
Ramesh Kumar, District Sirmaur, H.P. Vs. Food Corporation of India, Re ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
R.B. Misra, J. 1. In the present writ petition, petitioner has prayed to quash his transfer order dated 18.8.2012 (Annexure P-2) from the office of Food Supplies Department (FSD), Nahan under the Food Corporation of India to the office of Manager (Depot), FSD, Gujjar-Ka-Talab , Nurpur, District Kangra with a further prayer that the petitioner may be allowed to continue at Nahan till the age of his superannuation. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 14.4.1978 as Shifter / Watchman and was promoted in the year 2008 as Dusting Operator as a Class-IV employee. According to the petitioner, he is suffering from multiple diseases, including heart disease, diabetes and neurology ical problem and many of the problems have arisen because of his present transfer in question. Despite his representations date d 21.8.2012 followed by another representation dated 3.9.2012 a ddressed to General Manager, Food Corporation of India, the impugned transfer order has not been modified. The petition...
Dharam Prakash and Another Vs. State of H.P. Through Secretary Educati ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. This common judgment shall dispose of the present writ petition and also CWP No.2255/2012 as common issues have been brought to this Court therein for adjudication. 2. The complaint is that the petitioners though are duly eligible in accordance with the Recruit and Promotion Rules for appointment to the post of Acharya (Sanskrit College Cadre), however, their candidature has been rejected by the 2nd respondent erroneously and arbitrarily. 3. In this petition a prayer has been made to quash communication dated 6.3.2012 Annexure P-6, whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected for the reasons that he has not qualified NET/SET in Sanskrit Traditional Subjects, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to conduct his interview. IN CWP No.2255/2012 a direction has been sought to be issued to the 2nd respondent to conduct viva-voce of the petitioner pursuant to the call letter dated 20.3.2012, Annexure P-5, issued in his favour. 4. The facts not in ...
Parkash Chand Son of Shri Kirpa Ram Vs. Satish Sarotri Son of Late Pre ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Sanjay Karol, J. This is the complainants appeal filed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, assailing the judgment dated 12.7.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala in Cr.R.B.T. Case No. 51-II/04/02, titled as Parkash Chand versus Satish Sarotri and another. In terms of the said judgment, both the accused, the respondents herein stands acquitted. 2. On 13.6.2002 the present appellant Sh. Parkash Chand filed a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, Dharamshala against the private respondents. Allegedly Sh. Satish Salotra (accused No.1) persuaded the complainant and managed to get power of attorney executed in his favour. In terms thereof land owned by the complainant situated in village Sidhpur, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. could be sold. The complainant executed power of attorney (Ext. CW-1/A) with respect to khasra numbers 963, 964, 971, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 992 and 959. Even though sale ...
Sh. Garib Dass Vs. Sh. Biju and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against judgement dated 5.6.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division, at Rampur Bushahr in Civil Misc. Application No. 1 of 2012 affirming the order dated 14.3.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rampur Bushahr in case No. 62-1 of 2011 in CMP No. 48-6 of 2012. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents and others that he and his two brothers had inherited the landed property from their father Azeem Ulla, who constituted Hindu Joint Family. In April 1969 the petitioner and his two brothers entered into a family settlement and in such family settlement land comprised in specific khasra numbers had been allotted to each brother according to their convenience. After the settlement, the area so allotted in family settlement had been coming in their possession since then. The petitioner has developed the share, which came to him in fam...
President Shastra Society for Health and Social Transformation Vs. Mrs ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
V.K. Sharma, J. Oral: 1. Heard. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties these petitions, being connected matters, are taken up for final disposal by a common order. 3. There is no denying the fact that the respondent herein, in CMPMO Nos.189 and 218 of 2012, Smt. Kimtu Devi, is owner of the land in question, which was leased by her to the petitioner in those petitions, President Shastra Society for Health and Local Transformation, Rehabilitation. However, unfortunately, later on disputes arose between the parties, leading to litigation in the nature of a suit for possession and recovery of lease money amounting to Rs.3,25,000/- (three lac twenty five thousand), which is pending trial in the learned Court below. The suit, which was at the stage of defence evidence, is now fixed for final arguments, pursuant to failure on the part of the petitioner to lead evidence in defence despite as many as three opportunities having been granted. The order dated 4.6.2012, closing ...
Sanjiv Kumar Beldar Office of Assistant Engineer Vs. Himachal Pradesh ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner had originally filed Original Application No.2805 of 1999 before the H.P. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla challenging the order dated 27.9.1999 whereby his services were terminated. Since the Tribunal stands abolished vide notification issued by the Central Government the case was transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008, the matter has been taken up by this Court and now registered as CWP(T) No.6137 of 2008. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.3, Resident Engineer, Bassi Power House Division, HPSEB, Jogindernagar conducted interviews for filling up the posts of Beldars on 27.10.1986. The petitioner alongwith other candidates appeared in the interview. The petitioner was selected and duly appointed. 3. Three years after the appointmen...
Smt. Bimla Devi and Others Vs. Sh. Rajesh Kumar and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). Heard. 2. This regular second appeal arises out of concurrent findings of fact returned against the appellants herein by both the learned Courts below, in a suit for grant of a decree of declaration with consequential relief of prohibitory injunction, claiming acquisition of title to the suit land by adverse possession. 3. The appeal is sought to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. When the defendant who was not owner but being in possession received the price and delivered the possession, vide a registered sale deed dated 4.1.1962, but thereafter he got the ownership by way of inheritance, whether the defendant is not bound by the sale deed? 2. When the possession of the land in dispute was delivered to the plaintiffs by written sale deed, whether the plaintiff can be dispossessed except in accordance with law? 3. Whether the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence which goes to the root of the case? 4. Admittedly,...
Rakesh Vs. Mrs. Poonam
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated 17.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2011 affirming order dated 29.3.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in Cr. M.A. No. 420-iv/2008. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance Rs.5,000/- per month against the petitioner on the ground that she is legally wedded wife of petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 7.2.2008. The petitioner earlier was married with one Sharda and from that wedlock the petitioner has two sons. Sharda died in January, 2008. The petitioner solemnized marriage with the respondent in February, 2008. The respondent had conceived from the petitioner. 3. The parents of the petitioner levelled false allegations of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »