Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (2001)ILLJ632HP
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. This petition is filed by Samtel Workers Union (BMS), Parwanoo ('Union', for short), through its Secretary, for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside Certified Standing Orders, if any, of Samtel India Limited, Solan, respondent No. 3 herein ('Company', for short). A prayer is also made to direct respondent No. 3-Company to submit draft Standing Orders in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Himachal Pradesh Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). A further prayer is made restraining the third respondent Company from implementing or giving effect to order passed by it on the basis of unlawful Standing Orders and by restoring the rights of the members of the petitioner-Union declaring the action taken by the Company as illegal, unlawful and ultra vires.2. The case of the petitioner is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978HP2
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The appellants above named have preferred this appeal against the decision given by the court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Sirmur District in suit No. 137/1 of 1970 on his file dismissing the appellants' suit for possession of the suit premises and eviction of the respondent-defendants therefrom. The suit is with reference to the premises known as old Khalsa Hotel situated on the Mall, Solan bearing Municipal Nos 71/2 and 71/3. The respondents herein are the heirs and legal representatives of late Sardar Kartar Singh who was occupying the suit premises having initially taken them on lease.2. The record of the case shows that the deceased Kartar Singh originally executed rent note Ex. P-15 in favour of one Lala Ram Chander, father of the plaintiffs, on 19-10-1935. That rent note was for a fixed period of two years. Reference to the rent note shows that Kartar Singh has executed this rent note as proprietor of 'Pratap Khalsa Hotel' i. e. in his personal capacity. The record ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (2002)IILLJ861HP
C.K. Thakker, CJ.1. All these petitions have been placed before us, as a substantial question of law affecting jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal ('Administrative Tribunal' for short), has been raised therein. It is the contention of the State/ Authorities/ employers that the Administrative Tribunal has no power, authority or jurisdiction to entertain petitions/applications claiming reliefs under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act' or any other corresponding law for the time being in force and the Administrative Tribunal can exercise power, authority or jurisdiction only under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the AT Act'). All the orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal by invoking the provisions of the ID Act or under the corresponding law for the time being in force in favour of the petitioners were, therefore, illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction.2. To appreciate the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1997HP51
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. I. PREFACE :This petition was filed by a Professor of H.P. University who was in service, at the time when it was filed, in Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla. The prayer in the petition is to declare the amendments made by the Himachal Pradesh University Amendment) Act. 1983 to Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970 as illegal, ultra vires, prompted by wrong information, based on erroneous presumptions, a fraud on the Legislature, inconsistent with and repugnant to the objects of the principal Act, violative of the basic structure and essential features of the constitution of the University, a source of confusion and contradictions, lending to convert an autonomous institution into an agency or instrumentality of the State, harmful to the public interest, and quash the same. There is also another prayer to declare illegal and ultra vires the amendments in Sections 8 and 12 of the First Statutes of the University brought in by a notification No.3-l/76-HPU(Genl)Vol...
Tag this Judgment!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
Reported in : AIR1974HP57
D.B. Lal, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the decision of the District Judge Simla, affirming on appeal a decision of the Senior Sub-Judge, Simla, in execution case under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby objections of one Major (Retired) P. L. Morada, tenant of Grange Villa, Simla in execution of an order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controller Simla, in a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 have been dismissed. The case appears to have some chequered history. Sometime in 1970 Shri S. D. Bakshi landlord of Grange Villa filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rent Restriction Act. 1949) against his tenant Major P. L. Morada on ground of personal requirement of the accommodation, which was allowed on 22-3-1972. It is. however, to be noticed that the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter 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 : AIR1994HP167
A.L. Vaidya 1. The dispute between the parties pertained to the tenancy rights which they were claiming in the suit land measuring 3 Kanals 16 Marias bearing Khe-wat No. 134, Khatauni No. 300 and Khasra No. 14/4/2 situate in village Santokhgarh, Tehsil and Distt. Una. The present respondents, that is, Garibu deceased and Bal-krishan minor were the plaintiffs in the suit filed for declaration before the trial court. Their simple case had been that plaintiff No. 1, that is, Garibu and father of plaintiff No. 2 were in occupation of the suit land as tenants at Will on payment of rent for the last so many years and after the death of father of plaintfff No. 2 the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession of the suit land as tenant at Will. According to the plaintiffs, the present appellant Sh. Tulsa Singh was a clever person who connived with Patwari Halqua and got himself incorporated in the revenue record in Kharif 1976 as tenant at Will of the suit land without any right, title and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966HP54
Om Parkash, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Regular First Appeals Nos. 5 and 7 of 1968. These are cross-appeals and are directed against the judgment and decree dated the 30th September, 1963, of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Chamba. The facts, giving rise to the appeals, are as follows :2. Maharaja Sham Singh, Ruler of erst while Chamba State, had, by the deed Ex. P. W. 9/A, dated the 2nd May, 1893, made an inam grant of land measuring 7 laharies (one lahari equivalent to three acres), 2 acres, 6 kanals and 6 marlas situated in villages Uperli and Jhikli Chari, (upper and lower Chari), Pukhar, along with Namasi, in favour of Ganga Devi, and her son, Devi Chand. During the recent regular settlement operations in Chamba District, the cultivable land, situated in Chari and Pukhar villages, granted on the basis of Ex. PW. 9/A, was mutated in the ownership of Devi Chand. Bill Namasi was not mutated, in his name it was recorded, as owned, by the Himachal Pradesh Government...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977HP85
R.S. Pathak, C.J.The question referred for our consideration is:--Whether, upon the facts of the present case, for the purpose of applying Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953, the court is precluded from, going behind the entry recorded in the revenue records showing Hira and Smt. Devku as occupancy tenants and determining whetherapart from the entry they can be held to be occupancy tenants?2. On October 10, 1953 the plaintiff instituted a suit in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kulu for recovery of possession of agricultural land. It was alleged that the land originally belonged to one Rai Bhagwant Singh, that he had granted tenancy rights therein to Hira under lease deeds covering different parcels of land. Consequent mutations were made in favour of Hira. On Feb. 26, 1942 Hira died, and mutation entries were made in favour of his widow, Smt. Devku. Hira and in her turn Smt. Devku, were recorded in the revenue records as occ...
Tag this Judgment!