Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2001HP33
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Theabove writ petition has been filed by H. P. State Co-operative Marketing and Consumer Federation Ltd. under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order dated 24-12-1996 of the Joint Secretary (Co-operation) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, respondent No. 2 in case No. 30 of 1996 and second order dated 30-12-1998 of the Additional Secretary (Co-operation) marked Annexure P-13 rejecting the review petition of the petitioner-Federation against the order dated 24-12-1996.2. Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing and Consumer Federation Ltd. (for short HIMFED-petitioner) herein is a society registered under the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. 1968. First respondent Shri Bhagmal was working as Salesman/Store Keeper of HIMFED-petitioner at Hamirpur, District Hamirpur. He was charged with responsibility of maintenance of stock account receipts and sales of various kinds of fertilizers and cement. In the year 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1213
Bhawani Singh, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant Shri Jat Ram (75) challenges the judgment of Special Judge, Kangra Division in C.C. No. 9/-85, decided on 11-3-1987, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 409/467/471 of the Penal Code and Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 100/- in each of the offences and for failure to pay the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The substantive sentences, as aforesaid, have been ordered to run concurrently. The appellant feels aggrieved by this judgment, hence this appeal.2. The facts, in briefs, are that the appellant remained Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Pantehar, in Development Block, Baijnath, from 1960 to 1972. In that capacity, it is alleged, that the appellant used to handle the cash and records of the Panchayat and received and disbursed payment for and on behalf of the Panchayat. He also maintained accounts of the Panc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978HP30
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment.2. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the premises mentioned in the plaint were let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 18.00 per mensem in the year 1973. On April 16, 1973, the landlord served a notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. Because of his refusal to leave, the plaintiff filed the suit. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground, inter alia, that the notice terminating his tenancy was invalid. The trial court decreed the suit, and an appeal by the defendant has been dismissed by the learned District Judge. And now this second appeal.3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the notice terminating the tenancy is invalid because the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act require that the notice period should terminate with the month of the tenancy, and in this case, it is said, the tenancy month closed on the 8th May ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978HP36
R.S. Pathak, C.J. 1. This and the connected appeal have been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the award of the learned District Judge, Mahasu, in two references made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. The Himachal Pradesh Government issued two notifications in October 1967 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act declaring that land in the villages of Shahdhar and Maihgaon in Tehsil of Rampur, District Mahasu was needed, for the purpose of widening the Sarahan-Daranghati road. The two parcels of land belonged to the respondent, Rajkumar Rajinder Singh. Thereafter, on following the further procedure detailed in the land Act the Collector made an award determining the compensation payable to the respondent at Rs. 1,437.50 in respect of the land invillage Shahdhar and Rs. 2,831.87 for the land in village Majhgaon. In both cases, the compensation included 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The Collector made an order that the compensation so determined ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1995HP156
ORDER1. The petitioner Dr. K. C. Malhotra joined H. P. University since its very inception and had been posted as Dean of Sciences, Dean of Students Welfare and Dean of Studies. He as appointed as an acting vice Chancellor in the University of Himachal Pradesh on 18th January, 1986 and with effect from 1st March, 1986, he was appointed as Vice Chancellor for a period of five years as was then prescribed under the Himachal Pradesh University Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act). The Act was later on amended and the term of the office of the Vice Chancellor was reduced to three years. However, the petitioner continued to have renewal of the terms as Vice Chancellor and finally on 6th July, 1991, his terms of office of Vice Chancellor was renewed for a further period of three years vide order dated 6th~ July, 1991 (Annexure-PA). The petitioner's three years term was to expire in July, 1994 but in the meantime on 22nd September, 1993, a notification was issued by the respondent No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992HP8
Devinder Gupta, J.1. This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed on March 17, 1980, by District Judge, Hamirpur and Una Districts at Una, dismissing his appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on August 6, 1979, by Senior Sub-Judge, Una, by which suit of plaintiff-respondent was decreed for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction.2. Plaintiff claimed a decree for declaration on the basis that he was in actual cultivating possession of 11 Kanals 7 Marias of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 669, 670, 671, 672 and 674 situate in village Nandpur, Tehsil Amb., district Una, as a tenant under the defendant and the correction made in the revenue records in Rabi 1976 showing the defendant to be in cultivating possession was factually wrong, illegal, unauthorised, ineffective and inoperative against his rights and as on the basis of this wrong entry in the revenue records, defendants had intention tointerfere with his possession, therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1347
ORDERBhawani Singh, J.1. This revision petition under Section 497 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (to be referred hereinafter as 'the Code') arises out of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Criminal Appeal No. 41-S/10 of 1987 decided on 27-1-1989 thereby confirming the order of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Theog, dated 25-11-1986 in case No. 148/1 of 1983. The petitioner has a grievance against this order. Hence this petition.2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were prosecuted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It is alleged that on 19-11-1982, Kedar Singh, Inspector C.I.D., was present at Kotkhai in connection with some investigation. He got information that the accused had illicitly felled trees from the Government land. A raiding party was formed in which forest as well as revenue officials were associated and the party went to the spot a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (2000)IILLJ1355HP
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Both these Contempt Petitions filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 have been taken up and heard together since common questions of fact and law are involved therein and the learned counsel for the parties have made same and identical submissions and are being disposed of by this common order.Facts Both the petitioners were working with Pamwi Tissues Limited, Barotiwala as Welder/ Fitters. Their services were terminated by the management and Government of Himachal Pradesh referred Industrial Dispute to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for its adjudication. The Labour Court quashed the termination of the petitioners as well as other co-workmen vide award dated December 7, 1996 and ultimate para granting relief to the petitioners by the Labour Court is reproduced as under:'24. The result therefore, is that the entire enquiry proceedings held against the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
1. State has appealed against the judgment dated 8th March, 2000 of learned Special Judge, whereby respondents Suresh Chand Katoch and Chet Ram, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 465, 467, 471, 409 & 420, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, have been acquitted. 2. Respondent Suresh Chand Katoch was working as Junior Engineer in Irrigation & Public Health Department, Sub Division Barsar and respondent Chet Ram was working as Supervisor under him. Respondent Chet Ram submitted an undated handwritten complaint Ex. PW-14/A to Irrigation & Public Health Minister, Himachal Pradesh, in which several allegations were made against the higher officials of the Department. One of the allegations was that bogus Muster Rolls had been prepared and the amount mentioned in those Muster Rolls, shown to have been disbursed to the labourers named therein, had been pocketed by certain Engineers....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1987HP14
V.P. Bhatnagar, J. 1. This order is meant to dispose of Regular First Appeal No. 10 of 1975 as well as Regular First Appeal No. 61 of 1975. Both appeals have arisen as a result of the award made by the learned District Judge, Shimla on 23-8-1974. The Regular First Appeal No. 10 of 1975 has been preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh whereas Regular First Appeal No. 61 of 1975 by Shri Liaq Ram whose land was acquired. 2. The controversy between the parties has been considerably shortened inasmuch as the learned Advocate General who has argued this case on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh and Shri Kailash Chand, Advocate representing Shri Liaq Ram have both submitted during the course of arguments that the only point which required determination for the purpose of disposing these appeals is about the correct valuation of 58 apple trees standing on Khasra No. 60971 belonging to Shri Liaq Ram. It is also the case of both the parties that the area of the aforesaid Khasra number i...
Tag this Judgment!