Court : Himachal Pradesh
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of a civil writ petition filed by the petitioner/Board for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the proceedings initiated by the respondents as against the writ petitioner.2. Briefly stated, the fact facts of the case as alleged by the writ petitioner are that the petitioner/Board was constituted after the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, was passed and the petitioner/Board is having its Hydel Project situated in Village Shanan at Jogindernagar. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 initially issued one notice through its Assistant Environment Engineer, Bilaspur, on 29.7.1998, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner's unit was running without the control of the State Pollution Control Board under the provisions of the Water and Air Acts. It was also alleged in the notice that the petitioner's unit was discharging sewage and the petitioner was directed to obtain sanction from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008HP31
ORDERDev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is the defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge affirming the findings of the learned Sub Judge in a suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiff praying for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from raising any construction over the suit land. The suit was amended during the pendency of the appeal and a decree for possession was prayed.2. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for payment prohibitory injunction restraining and prohibiting the appellant-defendant Sita Ram (who was also a defendant in the suit) from raising any construction over the land comprised in Khasra No. 397/204, measuring 3 bighas, situated in Mauza Bhatanwali, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur on the allegations that the plaintiff-respondent is owner in possession of this land and the appellant-Ravi Kant and his father have no right, title or interest in it. It was averred that they were strangers an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 47-CA/13 of 1997.2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit for recovery of possession of land on the averment that the maternal grand-father (his Nana) late Sh. Munnu Ram was owner in possession of the land detailed in Khata Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Khatauni No. 10 min/29, 35, 43, 50 and 12/57, Khasra Nos. 257/209 measuring 1-8 bighas, Khasra No. 258/209 measuring 1-8 bighas, Khasra No. 256/209 measuring 0-10 bighas, Khasra No. 261/209 measuring 1-6 bighas, Khasra No. 140 measuring 0-2 bighas and Khasra No. 260/209 measuring 6-14 bighas respectively situated in village Dhown, Tehsil and District...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, dated 21.6.2005, for enhancement of the amount. This judgment shall also dispose of another appeal No. 442 of 2005 filed by the appellant/Insurance Company praying that the amount of compensation granted is not in accordance with the evidence and settled principles of law and the Insurance Company be held not liable to pay the amount in question.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the appellant hereinafter referred to as the claimants Rakesh Kumar and Prashant, for grant of compensation. It was alleged by the claimants that Smt. Sunita Devi (now deceased) wife of appellant/claimant Rakesh Kumar and mother of claimant Prashant, was going in a Jeep No. HP-552244 from Piplu and at near High School Kot, respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)ShimLC394
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. In the impugned order dated 30th June, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, the application of the petitioners filed under Order 20 Rule 18 had been practically rejected even though a direction indeed had been issued in the operative part of the Order for sending of the preliminary decree sheet and the jamabandis etc. to the Collector for effecting partition of the property in question. Let us notice the facts first.2. A suit for possession by way of partition was filed by the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, being Civil Suit No. 53 of 1996. Out of many Issues which were framed in the said suit, Issue No. 1 alone was relevant for determining and adjudicating upon the contentious and rival claims of the parties in the suit. Issue No. 1 reads thus:1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession by way of partition of abadi land in suit to the extent of half share as prayed for? OPP.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(3)ShimLC340
K.C. Sood, J.1. Under challenge in this petition is the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Shimla dated July 14, 2004. By this order, the vehicle, subject-matter of dispute, was seized by the Police in a case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was directed to be released to Ram Pal Chauhan, respondent No. 3, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the application of Sanjay Kumar, the petitioner, for release of the vehicle, was rejected.2. Aggrieved, Sanjay Kumar is in this petition under Section 482/ 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution.3. Brief facts leading to the seizure of the vehicle by the Police and its subsequent release to Ram Pal Chauhan are:4. Prem Singh Thakur, respondent No. 3, was the original owner of Bus 'Swaraz Mazda'. Sanjay Kumar, the petitioner, entered into an agreement with Prem Singh Thakur for the purchase of the vehicle. As per the agreement, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC374
R.B. Misra, J.1. In the present petition, the petitioner is aggrieved of the remarks of the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 1996-97 to the effect that the petitioner remained absent during the most part of reporting year and the working of the petitioner remained poor during this period. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the remarks appear to vague and are based on surmises and conjectures. The petitioner was never informed/conveyed qua his deficiencies/shortcomings. The remarks have been recorded without adhering to the settled position of law in this regard.2. For the purpose of adjudicating the issues and the grievances of the petitioner, it is necessary to analyses the decisions of the different Court given from time to time.2(a). In the State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher : AIR 1996 SC 1328, para 15, the Supreme Court has observed that the object of writing confidential report is two fold, i.e. to give an opportunity to the officer to rem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)ShimLC250
Sanjay Karol, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1995 passed by the District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 32-N/13 of 1995/1992 titled as Abida Begum v. The Secretary (Health) to the Government of H.P. and Anr., upholding the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1992 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan.2. For the purposes of convenience, the appellant hereinafter is referred to as the 'plaintiff and the respondents are referred to as the 'defendants'.3. Plaintiff filed a suit for damages for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs for failure of the leproscopic operation carried out by the functionaries of the State. On 12.3.1984, the plaintiff underwent a leproscopic operation at the District Hospital of the State of H.P. at Nahan. Despite the same, she conceived and delivered a child on 5.10.1985 and again conceived and delivered a child on 13.12.1987. She once again got herself operated for tubectomy operation on 18.1.1988. The suit was filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3271
Surinder Singh, J.1. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. The period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation of the trial was ordered to be set off.2. Precisely, the appellant was put on trial on the allegations that the prosecutrix aged about 16 years was engaged with one Budhi Singh. Her marriage was fixed for 23-4-1998, but on 18-4-1998, the appellant started persuading her to marry him, on the assurance to keep her well with great comforts and offered 10 tolas of gold ornaments, thus allured and compelled her not to marry Budhi Singh. It was also alleged that the appellant induced and took her away from her parental house during the intervening night of 18th/19th April, 1998 to his house and committed sexual intercourse on the assu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4702
ORDERR.B. Misra, J.1. The present revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the judgment and order dated 18.7.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, camp at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 19-NL/10 of 1999 confirming the judgment dated 24.11.1999 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. in Case No. 174/2 of 1996, whereby, the verdict of learned S.D.J.M., Nalagarh holding the accused-revisionists guilty of offence under Section 324, IPC has been affirmed whereby sentence of imprisonment for 6 months was awarded in addition to pay fine of Ripees 1500/- each for offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo further imprisonment for 6 months.2. The prosecution case is that on 29- 10-1996 at 7.30 a.m. the accused-petitioners-revisionists (hereinafter ...
Tag this Judgment!