Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973HP44
ORDERChet Ram Thakur, J.1. Sobha Ram and another had filed an appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 24-10-1969. passed by the District Judge, Sirmur at Nahan. dismissing the appeal of Sobha Ram against the judgment and decree of the Senior Sub Judge, Nahan. decreeing the suit of Bahadur Singh for possession of the suit land through pra-emption.2. Bahadur Singh plaintiff-respondent died during the pendency of this second appeal and according to the appellants he had no legal representative excepting Ohetu respondent No. 2, vendor, and as such the appeal must now be accepted as the suit had become in-fructuous. inasmuch as the appeal is also in continuation of the suit and the suit be dismissed.3. Sunder Singh son of Chuhar Singh filed a reply to this application opposing the same on the ground that the deceased had transferred through aregistered gift deed, dated 14-8-1969 his night, title and interest in. the land measuring 12 bighas 10 biswas including the land in dispute in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1985HP82
H.S. Thakur, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Single Judge (M. R. Ansari, J.), dated May 19, 1970. The appellant in the present appeal is the defendant in the suit whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs. The appellant shall hereinafter he referred to as the 'defendant' and the respondents as the 'plaintiffs'.2. A few facts relevant to decide this appeal may be stated. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they were in possession of the suit property as its owners and, in the alternative, for possession of the suit property. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit property originally belonged to one Onkar Singh. He died on March 20, 1933 and. on his death, the property was inherited by his widow Smt. Giano Devi, the defendant, as a life tenant and mutation was attested in her favour on April 22, 1933. Four or five years after the death of Onkar Singh, the defendant contracted a second marriage with one Girdh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner was appointed Junior Engineer in the respondent-Board on 16.7.1984. He was promoted to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer after completion of eight years service. He was further promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the month of September, 2003 and Senior Executive Engineer in the month of September, 2008. He retired on 31.1.2009. Deputy Secretary (GE) sent a communication to the Chief Accounts Officer on 26.2.2009 requesting him to withhold an amount of Rs. 10,34,746/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner until and unless the clearance of MAS/completion reports and regularization of excess over sanctioned estimates of the works executed by the petitioner. The Accounts Officer (Pension) also sent a communication to the Accounts Officer (P.G.) vide Annexure P-2 on 21.9.2011, according to which a sum of Rs. 10,34,746/- was recoverable from the petitioner, which was required to be adjusted accordingly from other dues payable to the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1999HP31
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. 1. The aforesaid two appeals have been taken up and heard together arising as they do out of a common order dated 25-11-1991 of the District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan dismissing the objec-tion petitions under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellants-decree holders and judgment debtors against the sale of the mortgaged property in favour of the respondents-auction purchasers Sh Onkar Singh and Sh Narinder Singh Shah. Appeal No. FAO (Ord) 165 of 1992 has been filed by Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation, Decree-holder-Objector and appellants Sh Udey Gupta and Smt. Rakhi Guptaare the Judgment-debtors-objectors in FAO No. 3 of 1993. In both the appeals same and similar questions of facts and law are involved, they would stand disposed of by this common judgment.2-3. The relevant facts necessary for deciding these appeals may be stated as under :--The suit of appellant-Financial Corporation was decreed by the Court against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1447
H.S. Thakur, J.1. The following question has been referred to this Division Bench for decision:Whether it is open to a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code on the basis of a police report submitted before him by the police after formation of the opinion that in view of the material collected during the course of investigation, no case is made out for sending the accused for trial.2. The facts and circumstances under which the question has arisen may be briefly stated. One Basant Lai lodged the First Information Report No. 58 on 9th June, 1977, at Police Station, Theog, alleging offence under Section 348, I.P.C. against the present petitioners. As a result of the investigation conducted in the case, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the case against the petitioners was politically motivated and that the allegations made in the FIR were all false. The Investigating Officer prepared his report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1030
Chet Ram Thakur, J.1. Saligram has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Sections 409 and 466, I. P. Code and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- under each count passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala on 31st December, 1970.2. The appellant was employed as a Postman in the Post Office, Nurpur during the months of March and April, 1967. Ram Lai (P.W.) was the Postal Clerk and Ram Parkash (P.W.) was the Postmaster of that Post Office. One money order for Rs. 40/-was booked from Subathu Post Office on 21st March, 1967 by Prem Singh Pathania (P.W.) payable to his son Rajeshwar Singh (P.W.) at Nurpur. The said money order was received in the Nurpur Post Office on 23rd March, 1967. Necessary entries in the register known as 'M.O.-3' were made by Ram Parkash Clerk (P.W.). Thereafter he gave the amount with the money order to the accused for disbursement to Rajeshwar Singh who was then a student in the Government Higher Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
1. This petition, under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing statements/ confessions of respondents No. 3 to 6 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Solan, under section 164 Cr.P.C. and for quashing the orders of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Solan, granting pardon to respondents No. 3, 4, under sections 306 Cr.P.C. 2. The facts in brief, as per petitioner, are that an FIR No.10/2009 dated 9.7.2009, has been registered at State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan against petitioner and one another. The respondent No. 2 is the complainant, but despite that he investigated the case. The respondent No. 2 was transferred from Special Investigation Unit to Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla in July 2009; he had no power to investigate the case registered at Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan. 3. The respondent No. 2 had personal interest in false implication of the petitioner, he threatened the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1972CriLJ185
ORDERM.H. Beg, C.J.1. There are two revision applications before me. One is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Mahasu In a case in which the opposite party was convicted by a Magistrate under Section 337 I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. The other revision application is directed against an order of the District Magistrate dismissing the complaint of Lumbru, the applicant, against Shankar Dass and his wife Ludri for alleged offences punishable under Sections 307 and 307/114 I. P. C. and also for action under Section 403(4) of Cr. P. C. Both the revision applications arise out of a common set of facts relating to the same incident described below together with the findings of fact arrived at about it.2. It appears that on 24-7-1968, at about 11 A. M., when Paerey Lal. the son of the applicant Lumbru, was ploughing in his father's field, together with his cousin Maulu, a few feet ahead a gun shot was heard from the direction o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1987CriLJ1266
R.S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmour Districts, camp at Solan on Dec. 28, 1984, against the accused appellant Paramjit Singh (hereinafter called as the accused), under Sections 363,366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 366 of the the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story is t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1991ACJ825
Devinder Gupta, J.1. A common question of law, which arises for determination in these Letters Patent Appeals, is as to whether the payment made by the State Government under the Scheme known as 'Himachal Pradesh Scheme for the payment of ex gratia grant to a passenger' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), previously known as 'Himachal Pradesh Passenger Insurance Scheme' framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 3-A of the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (Act No. 15 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Passengers and Goods Taxation Act') and the amount paid by the appellant, namely, the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, by way of interim relief immediately after an accident is liable to be deducted from out of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (as replaced by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act').2. The State legislature e...
Tag this Judgment!