Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993HP84
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The election of respondent No. 1, the returned candidate from Hamirpur Parliamentary constituency is under challenge in this Election Petition. Nominations for filing papers to the Lok Sabha from 4-Hamirpur Parliamentary constituency commenced on 20th April, 1991. Last date for the same was 26th April, 1991 and the dates for scrutiny and withdrawal were 27th and 29th April, 1991, respectively. The polling was held on 20th May, 1991. Counting of votes could not commence on 26th May, 1991, due to the assassination of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and was deferred to I6th June, 1991. The counting commenced on 16th June, 1991 at Hamirpur, Una, Bilaspur and Dehra simultaneously. The result was declared on 17th June, 1991. Respondent No. 1 secured 2,05,970 votes as against the petitioner, who secured 2,02,232 votes. Respondent No. 1 was declared duly elected having won the election with a margin of 3738 votes. Respondents No. 2 to 16 were the other candidates who contested the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993HP71,I(1994)DMC308
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. Appellant has come up in appeal against the judgment and decree of District Judge, Hamirpur, dated 31st October, 1987 dismissing his petition seeking to have the marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce. 2. The parties to the petition are working as teachers. They were married on 21st November, 1968, but there is no child of this marriage. The parties could not pull on together despite the fact that efforts were made to have the matter reconciled. Ultimately, the appellant on 14th November, 1983 filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') praying for a decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights against the respondent. It is not disputed that on 9th January, 1985 the said petition was dismissed as not pressed. On the same day an application under Section 13B(1) of the Act was moved jointly by the parties seeking to have the marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Copy of the said petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : IV(2005)ACC674,2006ACJ1831,AIR2006HP49
Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1), Sirmour District at Nahan (hereafter referred to as 'the Tribunal), in MAC Petition No. 07-N/2 of 1997, decided on 27-4-1998. The Cross-Objections filed by the claimant are also being disposed of along with this appeal.2. The facts necessary for the decision of the case are that an ambulance bearing Registration No. HP-17-0871 was owned by respondent No.3, M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories. On 25-9-1996, the said van was being driven by Kishan Chand, respondent No. 2. There was an accident between this ambulance and one scooter, as a result of which claimant Amar Chand suffered injuries and both bones of his left leg were fractured. The claimant filed a claim petition, which was contested by the owner, driver and Insurance Company. One of the defences raised by the Insurance Company was that the driver Kishan Chand did not. have a valid driving li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2004ACJ1851,AIR2003HP102
M.R. Verma, J.1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the 'Code') has been preferred by the appellant-defendant (hereafter referred to as 'the appellant1) against the judgment and decree dated 31-12-1988, passed by the learned District Judge, Kinnaur Division at Rampur, whereby he had modified the judgment and decree dated 28-11-1996 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Rampur.2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of the present appeal are that respondent No. 1 (hereafter referred to as R-1) Instituted a suit against the appellant, respondents 2 and 3 (hereafter referred to as 'R-2' and 'R-3') and one M/s. Jindal Roadways, now represented by respondents 4 to 8 (hereafter referred to as 'R-4 to R-8') for Rs. 54,500/-. Case of R-1 as made out in the plaint, is that he owns and possesses an apple orchard from which he supplies apple boxes for marketing to Delhi and other places in India. The apple boxes are sent in trucks to the marketing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992HP70,1992CriLJ2542
Bhawani Singh, J.1. These criminal writ petitions, being common in nature, scope and effect are being decided by a common judgment and the learned counsel for the parties also agree that they should be so decided.2. The petitioners, in both these petitions, are undergoing imprisonment in the jails of the State. They submitted the petitions to this Court which were placed on Judicial side for examination and decision by Chief Justice P.D. Desai, as he then was. In Criminal Writ Petition 6 of 1985 (Gurdev Sing v. State of H. P.) the petitioners complain that they are employed for work but are being paid Rs. 1.50 per day for the labour. They also say that no wages are paid for the first three months of labour. Jn Criminal Writ Petition No. 49 of 1985 (Bhag Singh Chauhan v. State of H. P.), in addition to the allegation of the improper management of wage amounts by the Superintendent of Jail and the Store Keeper, they also say that they are forced to work with contractors either at less wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972HP139
ORDERChet Ram Thakur, J. 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Shri Narain Singh challenges the validity of the order (Annexure D) of the Secretary, Panchayats, respondent No. 1, dated 26-8-1971, whereby the petitioner has been suspended from the office of the President. Gram Panchayat Salogra. The impugned order reads as under:--'Whereas an inquiry into the complaints filed by Smt. Bimla Devi wife of Shri Jagdish, resident of Salogra, Tehsil Solan, District Mahasu is contemplated against Shri Narain Singh, President, Gram Panchayat, Salogra; Now, therefore, the Government in terms of the provisions of S. 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchavati Rai Act, 1968, orders the suspension of the said Shri Narain Singh from the office of the President Gram Panchayat Salogra with immediate effect and further order that the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Himachal Pradesh will conduct the inquiry and furnish his report to the Government within 20 days. It is al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1981HP8
V.D. Misra, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of Mr. Justice C, R. Thakur allowing the writ petition of the respondents.2. Khasra Nos. 166, 134 and 57 of village Dhamrara, Tehsil Rohru is a Shami-lat Deh land owned by the villagers On this land stand large number of Deodar, Kail and Rai trees. The respondents, who are contractors and forest lessees, were interested in buying the trees. They negotiated with the villagers who constituted a committee to settle the terms and conditions of sale of the trees. On 18th July, 1974 the respondents entered into an agreement with this committee and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was paid as advance.3. On 11th April, 1974 Himachal Pra-desh Legislative Assembly passed the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974 (Act No. 18 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Vesting Act). It received the assent of the President on 9th August, 1974, and was published in Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ99HP
Leila Seth, C.J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgments of both my learned brothers, which they are about to deliver. Since the various decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as well as the provisions of law and the facts have been dealt with in detail in the said judgments, I do not intend to repeat them. However, the following conclusions can be culled out from the various decisions and provisions.1. A mere demand made to the Government cannot become an industrial dispute without it being raised by the workmen with their employer.2. If such a demand is made to the Government it can be forwarded to the management and if rejected, becomes an industrial dispute.3. Though it is apparent that for a dispute to exist there must be a demand by the workmen on the employer, this demand need not be in writing, unless the matter pertains to a public utility service, in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.4. The demand need not be sen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. Amar Nath has filed this writ petition under Article 227, wherein he has called in question the order of confiscation and sale made by the Collector of Una under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in respect of 27 bags of maize and 19 bags of wheat said to be stored at the shop known as 'M/s. Hem Raj Rameshwar Datt'. The facts giving rise to the petition are, that the petitioner was the owner of the food stuff and the same was stored at the shop not for sale but because he needed some place to stock it. The police moved an application under Section 6-A for the confiscation of the said bags of maize and wheat. Accordingly the Collector ordered for confiscation but in addition thereto also ordered for disposal of the grain in so far as, that he directed the maize to be sold through the Food Corporation of India and the wheat to be sold by auction and the amount was to remain deposited in the Government Treasury. According to petitioner, the order rega...
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!