Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1994CriLJ3662
Bhawani Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, in Sessions trial No. 27-N/7 of 1991, dated 24-9-1992. The accused has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/ -, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The facts of the case may now be summarised.2. On 9-8-1991, deceased Lal Singh (hereafter 'the deceased') was sitting with Mohar Singh (PW 1) and Basti Ram (PW 2) in the courtyard of Basti Ram and Bishan Singh. At about 5 p.m., accused Mauji Ram (hereafter 'the accused') came there with a darat. While the deceased was in the process of lighting his beedi, the accused hit him with a darat on the neck. The deceased received cut injury in the neck, fell down and died. He was overpowered by Mohar Singh and Basti Ram. Darat was snatched from him and he was tied with a Pillar. Many People came there. Pradhan of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (2002)IIILLJ768HP
Arun Kumar Goel, J. 1. Appellant was plaintiff in the trial Court and is being referred to as such. He filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order of dismissal dated August 6, 1981 passed by defendant No. 3 and order of compulsory retirement dated May 5, 1982 passed by defendant No. 2 is null void and inoperative. Further relief was also claimed by him of service benefits etc. As per averments made in the plaint, he was employed as a Class IV in January, 1956 by the Mining Engineer, Government of India, Salt Department, Mandi and was confirmed as such by the Deputy Salts Commissioner, Mandi. He was subsequently appointed as Lower Division Clerk by the said Deputy Salt Commissioner with Headquarter at Jaipur w.e.f. March 27, 1963.2. Further case set up was that Salt Department of Government of India was disbanded and converted into company known as Hindustan Salt Ltd. (a Government of India undertaking). Mandi salt mines were also handed over to this company along with its sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993HP7,II(1992)DMC142
ORDERKamlesh Sharma, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 15-7-1988 of Special Marriage Officer, Shimla (Urban), Sub-Division, Shimla, appointed under the Special Marriage Act, whereby he has refused to solemnise their marriage under the Special Marriage Act on the ground that since petitioner No. 1 is a permanent resident of Germany, it is not possible to transmit acopy of notice to Marriage Officer of the District within whose limit, petitioner No. 1 permanently resides, as provided under Section 6(3) of the Special Marriage Act. He has assumed that no marriage Officer under the Special Marriage Act has been appointed in Germany by the Government of India. The order dated 15-7-1988 of Special Marriage Officer, Shimla, was challenged before the District Judge in appeal filed under Section 8(2) of the Special Marriage Act, but it has been dismissed as not maintainable vide judgment dated 25-8-1988 passed by the District Judge, Shimla. Now, by way of this petition unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2000HP53
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. Appellant is the defendant, whereas, respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff and respondent No. 2 is defendant No. 2 and they will be referred to as such in this judgment. This appeal at the instance of the defendant is against the decree and judgment dated 23-3-1998 passed by District Judge, Shimla whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for specific performance of the contract dated 25-8-1993 against the defendant, who is directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on his paying a sum of Rs. 3,70,000/- on account of balance sale consideration. The suit property is a house and adjoining vacant land bearing Khasra numbers 131, 132 and 133 situate in Estate Andheri, Summer Hill, Shimla. Initially the suit was instituted in the High Court but later on it was transferred to the Court of District Judge when the pecuniary limit of the said Court was increased from Rs. 2 lacs to Rs. 5 lacs.2. The facts in brief, as pleaded...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : III(2004)ACC775,2005ACJ962
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. Both these appeals have arisen out of order dated 7.7.2003, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (SDM), Paonta Sahib in Case No. 14 of 1999 titled as Jai Singh v. Satnam Singh. As such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5-claimants filed proceedings under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against Satnam Singh, owner of the truck No. HR 11-2209, Sohan Lal its driver and one Tapender Singh. F.A.O. No. 445 of 2003 is by Tapender Singh, whereas F.A.O. No. 6 of 2004 is by (owner and driver of the truck. Tapender Singh is being referred to hereinafter as 'the appellant' whereas the driver and owner are being jointly referred to as 'the appellants', hereinafter.3. The case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was that the deceased was engaged as a labourer by Tapender Singh who was constructing his house on a daily wage of Rs. 60. Deceased while working as a laboure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
1. By this judgment, three appeals, particulars whereof are given hereinabove, are being disposed of, because appellants in all the three appeals, have been convicted and sentenced by the same judgment of the trial Court, i.e. judgment dated 28.6.2002, of learned Special Judge, Shimla. 2. Appellants, Jai Lal Banstu and Balbir Singh, have been convicted of offences, under Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420 IPC and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, while appellants Nathu Singh and Subhash Chand, besides the aforesaid offences, have been convicted of offences, under Sections 218 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. All the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 120-B IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-, under Section 420 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1987HP1
ORDERV.P. Gupta, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated July 12, 1982, passed by the Senior Sub-Judge Shimla, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition. 2. Briefly, the facts are that a money decree was passed by Munsif Court Ghaziabad, on Dec. 21, 1967 in favour of Bidhi Chand Shastri (now deceased) against M/s. Ralla Ram Tulsi Ram and others. 3. The present petitioners claim themselves to be the legal representatives of Bidhi Chand, who died on Jan, 5, 1982. The respondents are the judgment-debtors. Bidhi Chand moved the court of Munsif Ghaziabad for transferring the decree to the Court at Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) for execution purposes and Munsif Ghaziabad sent the decree for execution to the court of Shimia, along with a copy of the decree and a certificate under Order 21 Rule 6 of the Civil P.C. (hereinafter the Code). Bidhi Chand also moved an application under Order 21, Rule 30 of the Code in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge Shimla on Nov. 20, 1979 and prayed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1974HP1
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. The Union of India is aggrieved by an order of the District Judge, Simla. as Appellate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, quashing an order of the Estate Officer for eviction of the respondent, Shri C. Baljee.2. The Grand Hotel. Simla, belongs to the Government of India. On April 15, 1965. the Government executed a lease in favour of Messrs Bailee in respect of a portion of the Grand Hotel for three years ending April 14. 1968 on an annual rent of Rs. 49,812/- payable monthly. There was a clause in the lease that it could be renewed at the option of the Government upon the expiry of the period of three years. On January 9/12, 1968 the Government of India wrote to the lessee that it had decided not to renew the lease and that, therefore, vacant possession should be handed over upon its expiry. The lessee served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the Central Government protesting against the direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971HP17,1971CriLJ1750
D.B. Lal, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, whereby he has convicted Dharampal aged 17 years. under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The prosecution case may briefly be stated. On 2nd November, 1968 at about 5.00 P.M. Kumari Ishro aged 10 years, who is the daughter of Munshi Ram of village Chhatrer, Tehsil Hamirpur was sent by her father to get grinded wheat at the flour machine of village Toni. The girl returned with a small bag of flour and when she reached the field of one Devi Singh, Dharampal accused had been waiting to meet her. He gave her a push, untied the string of her Salwar and criminally assaulted her. It is stated that when the girl started crying, her mouth was attempted to be gagged by her Dopatta. The penetration had t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2005CriLJ1136
K.C. Sood, J.1. This State appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Special Judge, Chamba dated February 21, 2003.2. It appears, respondent Sukhdev Singh, hereinafter referred to as 'the accused', was tried by the learned Special Judge, Chamba under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) and was acquitted by the impugned judgment.Prosecution case :3. Accused Sukhdev Singh was posted as Block Development Officer, Mehla in the District of Chamba in the year 1997. Chain Lal Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Gagla was awarded two works by the Block Development Officer, Mehla, i.e. :(a) Construction of Government Primary School, Gagla and(b) Construction of School at Kuran, in Gram Panchayat, Gagla.Complainant executed both the works but he was not released final payment(s) of the two works. Rupees 14,000/- were due in respect of the work of construction of School building and rupees 20,400/- in respect of the co...
Tag this Judgment!