Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : [2005]57SCL225(HP)
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. This petition under Sections 391 to 394 read with Section 81 (1 A) and Sections 100 to 103 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been filed by Gontermann-Piepers (India) Limited with its registered office at Bharatgarh Road, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to Ist petitioner-Company; and G.P.I. Textiles Limited with its registered office at Bharatgarh Road, Nalagarh, District Solan (hereinafter referred to 2nd petitioner-company) praying for the sanction of the modified Scheme of Arrangement filed with the petition as Exhibit-'A' to be binding with effect from the 1st day of January, 2003 on both secured and unsecured creditors.2. Ist and 2nd petitioners-Companies had earlier filed Company Petition No. 12 of 2003 in this Court under section 391(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 praying for convening the meeting of the shareholders of both Companies for consideration and approval of the Scheme of Arrangement between Ist petitioner-Company...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
R.S. Pathak, C.J. 1. I regret I am unable to agree entirely with my brother D. B. Lal. The facts have been stated in his judgment and need not be repeated here.2. The first question is whether the landlord and tenant are bound in a proceeding for the fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (which for convenience I shall call 'the Act') by an earlier order of the Controller determining the fair rent in terms of a compromise between the same parties in respect of the same building.3. Section 4 of the Act provides for the fixation of the fair rent of a building by the Controller. Sub-section (1) provides that on application by the tenant or the landlord the Controller must fix the fair rent 'after holding such enquiry as the Controller thinks fit'. Sub-section (2) prescribes the scheme to be followed by the Controller. The scheme provides that he should first determine the basic rent. Two considerationsare laid down for that purpose; (a) t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : IV(2005)BC255,[2005]128CompCas179(HP)
K.C. Sood, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated November 22, 2001, whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed for Rs. 10,93,425/- along with interest of Rs. 1,64,012/- at the rate of 9% per annum and also future interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal amount from 10.12.1999 i.e. the date of the filing of the suit till the realisation of the decretal amount.The Facts :2. Appellant, H.P. State Forest Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant Corporation,' is a Government Company constituted under the Company Act, 1956. The Corporation is subjected to statutory audit and income tax. The respondent, M/s. S. Butail and Company, hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff Company', is a Chartered Accountant Company. The Company renders professional services in audit, accounts taxation and other allied matters.3. It appears, when the assessment of the defendant Corporation for the year 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1979HP35
T.U. Mehta, C.J.1. In this writ application show cause notice was issued to the respondents and reply has been filed; the rejoinder has also been filed. The petitioners are the residents of Tehsil Kursog situated in Mandi District of this State. They previously belonged to Chanyana Gram Sabha which was constituted in the year 1972. This Sabha consisted of 12 villages. The petitioners, however, wanted a separate Sabha for 7 of these 12 villages. These seven villages for which they wanted a separate Sabha are Sheglinal, Badyog, D. P. F. Alyas, Kalangar, Khadkan, Kot and Sawindhar. It appears that they could persuade the Government to bifurcate the Chanyana Gram Sabha into two and to establish a separate Sabha for the above referred seven villages known as Sawindhar Gram Sabha. The remaining five villages were to form Chanayana Gram Sabha. The Government accordingly issued notification dated 11th May, 1978 as found at Annexure P-14. By this notification the original Chanyana Gram Sabha wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : IV(2005)ACC194,2006ACJ1677
Deepak Gupta, J.1. An interesting question has been raised in this appeal- Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation when an accident occurs and the insured vehicle is not in the control of the owner but has been requisitioned by the government?2. The facts necessary for the decision of this case are that a Maruti Gypsy bearing No. HIS 6095 was owned by Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'NJPC'). It was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. The said vehicle was requisitioned by the government for election purposes. During the period when this vehicle was requisitioned and was being used by the SDM, Rampur the vehicle struck against one Satish Kumar who sustained injuries and died. The parents of Satish Kumar filed a claim for compensation. Claims Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 1,07,880 in favour of L.Rs. Tribunal exonerated the insurance company and held the State Government liable to pay the compensation.3. Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1980HP45
V.D. Misra, C.J. 1. The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the GramPanchayat, Kungrath, Tehsil and District Una, in Nov.-Dec. 1978 after defeating Shri Tarsem Singh, respondent No. 5. Thereafter Tarsem Singh reported to the Deputy Commissioner as well as to the State Government that the petitioner has been convicted under SECTION 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on 9th Sept. 1979 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. The Deputy Commissioner proceeded to suspend the petitioner by his order dated 9th Nov. 1979 (Annexure 'A'). Another notice was served on the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed under the provisions of Section 9 (5) (b) and (c) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968 because of the aforementioned conviction (Annexure 'B'). The petitioner immediately asked the Deputy Commissioner to supply him with a copy of the complaint filed by Tarsem Singh, However, it was not done.2. The petitioner moved the present petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : [2003]133STC101(HP)
D. Raju, C.J.1. These writ petitions are dealt with together since they involve consideration and decision of identical questions of law of almost similar nature on certain common background of facts except certain variations and differences with reference to either the year of assessment of the petitioners who have come before this Court or the amount of tax involved as also the stage and manner in which they approached this Court. To illustrate, though in all cases the relief sought for is in the nature of writs of certiorari to quash the assessment orders, as also the appellate orders, passed by the appellate authority in these cases. It is stated that on earlier occasion the matter has been brought to this Court and this Court, in those matters, was pleased to set aside the order of the appellate authority on the ground of the same having not been passed by the competent authority and that the Commissioner also thereafter on suo motu action remitted the proceedings to the original ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972HP105
ORDERR.S. Pathak, C.J. 1. The petitioner is a Municipal Committee constituted under Section 10 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968. Sri Pyare Lal is the President. The fourth respondent, Shri. Durga Singh Thakur, is one of the members of the Committee. By a letter dated December 29, 1969, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu District, Kasumpti, the fourth respondent submitted his resignation from the membership of the committee. The ground tar his resignation Was the decision of the Government turning down the vote of no confidence in the President. He stated that in case the Government was prepared to review its decision. he would withdraw his resignation. However, on March 17, 1970, even without any response from the Government the fourth respondent wrote to the Deputy Commissioner withdrawing his resignation. The Committee, on coming to know of that communication, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner that the notice of withdrawal was barred by time inasmuch as it had not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959HP3,1959CriLJ448
ORDER: I allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 29-5-1957 of Shri Om Prakash Sessions Judge, Mandi, acquitting Mt. Shiv Devi, of an offence under Section 302, I. P. C. I convict Mt. Shiv Devi of an offence under Section 302, I. P. C., and sentence her to life imprisonment.36. The directions made by the Sessions Judge for the disposal of case property will, however, stand....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002HP94
ORDERR.L. Khurana, J. 1. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 23-10-2000 of the learned District Judge, Mandi, holding that the suit filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs) has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction and that he has no pecuniaiy jurisdiction to try the suit. It was further held that the petitioners were required to pay the ad valorem Court-fee on Rs. 25,86,240/- being the market value of their shares in the immovable properties, the partition of which is being sought. 2. The petitioners and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons and daughters of one Ram Rakha Kaushal of Sarkaghat in District Mandi. The said Ram Rakha has died on 12-8-1983 leaving behind the petitioners and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as his only legal heirs. Ram Rakha owned immovable properties, detailed in para 3 of the plaint, which have devolved upon the petitioners and respondents No. 1 to 3 in equal shares, that is, to the extent of 1/8th share e...
Tag this Judgment!