Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976HP75
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a claimants' first appeal directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kangra Division dismissing their petition for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.2. Daya Ram was employed as a truck driver by the respondents Tani Ram, Smt. Raj Kumari, Jagmohan and Chain Lal. They owned Truck No. HIM-4934, which was insured with the Oriental Fire & Life Insurance Company Limited. On February 18, 1968, Daya Ram was driving the truck from Mehatpur to Bahi Kharialti in the Tahsil of Hamir-pur. At Talmehra, at about 6 O'clock in the morning, the truck met with an accident. It overturned and Daya Ram was killed. His widow Smt. dayatri Devi, his daughter Neelam and son Papu filed a claim on May 3, 1968 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation from the employers and the Insurance Company. The respondents resisted the claim on the ground that the Tribunal had no ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976HP1
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the validity of two, notifications dated January 21, 1974 whereby the Governor of Himachal Pradesh has fixed the headquarters of the Solan Sessions Division and of the Solan Civil District at Nahan in the district of Sirmur.2. Three notifications were issued by the Governor of Himachal Pradesh. The first notification No. 11-2/66-Appt. (DP) (i) dated August 30/31, 1972 was made under Section 7 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and by it the limits of the existing Sessions Divisions were altered and the Sessions Divisions were re-constituted, the limits of the newly constituted Solan Sessions Division being the Solan and Sirmur districts with headquarters at Solan. By the same notification the Governor, acting under Section 9 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, established a court of Session for each of the Sessions Divisions so constituted. A copy of this notification is Anne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3768
ORDERM.R. Verma, J.1. This petition under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (here-after referred to as 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 31-8-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan whereby the order dated 1-5-1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. (I), Paonta Sahib dropping the proceeding in complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code instituted by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') has been ordered to be dropped, has been set aside.2. Brief and relevant facts leading to the presentation of this petition are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused) on the allegations that a news defaming the complainant was published in the Tribune Chandigarh on 31-5-1995 and the said newspaper is run by the accused. It was claimed that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1982HP50
T.R. Handa, J. 1. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 against the respondents. The learned Tribunal vide its award dated 29-6-1974 dismissed that claim of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has now approached this Court in appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The case for the appellant is that on 16-6-1968 at about 5 p.m. he along with his two friends Balbinder Singh son of Shri Dogar Singh (P.W. 2) and Sukh-dev Singh (P.W. 3) proceeded from Nan-gal towards Una in private car No. PNU 6483 belonging to his father. The appellant was himself driving the said car. Near a village known as Jalgran which falls between Nangal and Una and is about 1'6 kilometres from Nangal, the car of the appellant developed some mechanical trouble on account of which the appellant stopped the vehicle and parked it on the kacha road on his left side. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962HP5
ORDERC.B. Capoor, J.1. This referencee has been made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasu, Sirmur, Bilaspur and Kinnaur Sessions Division, recommending that the order of the learned Magistrate first class, Arki, in a case under section 145, Cri. P. C., be set aside and the case remanded to him for passing fresh orders after making proper inquiry as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 145, Cri. P. C. 2. It appears that the parties to the proceeding did not file any affidavit and instead examined Witnesses in support of their respective cases. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the aforesaid procedure was in contravention of Sub-section (1) of Section 145, Cri. P. C., and the order of the learned Magistrate was liable to be quashed on that score. In arriving at that conclusion he relied upon the cases reported in AIR 1959 (1955 is obviously a mistake) All 763, Bhagwat Singh v. State and S. Jodh Singh v. Bhagambar Dass, 63 Pun LR 63: (AIR 1961 Punj 187). 3. Ira the AIR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1982HP29
Vyom Prakash Gupta, J.1. S/Shri Ishwar Dass and Om Prakash filed a suit for possession in respect to the property mentioned in the plaint on the allegations that they are the owners of tha disputed property and that the same was mortgaged with S/Shri Ganga Ram, Sant Ram and Salig Ram. In is alleged that the mortgage was redeemed by the plaintiffs on 26-1-1961. The plaintiffs have further alleged that Tara Chand defendant is in possession of the property in dispute as trespasser and he was never inducted as a tenant by the plaintiffs and if the said Tara Chand defendant had been inducted as a tenant by the mortgagees then this act of the mortgagees was mala fide and the plaintiffs are not bound by the said tenancy created by the mortgagees. This suit was filed in the court of the Senior Sub Judge, Dharamsala on 11-1-1967.2. Defendant Tara Chand contested the suit and contended that the disputed land was given to the defendant's ancestors by plaintiffs' ancestors for residential purposes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1982HP57
Vyom Prakash Gupta, J.1. This regular second appeal has been filed by defendant against the judgment and decree dated 8-6-1979 of District Judge, Hamirpur, by which the learned District Judge accepted the appeal of the plaintiffs-respondents and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents for possession of the disputed property.2. The brief facts are that plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 1 to 6) filed a suit for declaration with respect to the property detailed in the plaint to the effect that they are the owners and in possession of the suit property and in the alternative they prayed for possession of the disputed property. The suit was originally filed in the Court of the Sub Judge, Hamirpur on 31-10-1968 on the allegations that one Gajjan Singh son of Shri Ranu was the owner of the suit land and he died on 26-6-1963 leaving behind the plaintiff No. 1 as his daughter, plaintiff No. 2 as his widow, and plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 6 as sons and daughters of his predeceased daughter Gian Devi....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2005CriLJ4734
Surjit Singh, J.1. Through these two appeals, appellants have challenged the judgments dated 25-6-2004 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court), Una, delivered in two cross cases. In one ease, which has given rise to Appeal No. 264 of 2004, the appellants, namely Dilbag Singh, Ranjit Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, have been held guilty of offences under Sections 307, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly causing injuries to Shiv Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Didar Singh and Sukhdev Singh, by means of sharp edged as also blunt weapons in an incident that took place on 8-11-1999, at a place called Sanoli, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Una. The said appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 20.000/- each, for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of two years each.2. In the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1967HP6
1. This appeal, by the plaintiff, against a decree and judgment of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi has arisen out of a suit, for possession of land, measuring 7 bighas 10 biswas and 1 biswansi, comprised in Khasra Nos. 5, 6 and 43/34, situated in village Bhangauhli, a suburb of Mandi Town, in Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, after demolishing the buildings, standing thereon, or in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 25,050/ as value of the land. The suit was founded on the following allegations:2. The plaintiff was the Ruler of Mandi State, now merged in Himachal Pradesh. since 1st May, 1948. The land, in suit, was acquired by the plaintiff, in 1946, from its former owners, for his personal requirement for starling and housing a private dairy farm The land was considered as a part of the Bijai Palace Estate, the personal and private property of the plaintiff. The land remained in possession of the plaintiff even after the merger of Mandi State with Himachal Pradesh3. In Fe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2743
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') has assailed the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, dated 31-3-2003. The Additional Sessions Judge, Una, has charged and convicted the accused for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, the accused has been ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. The accused has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. The sentences, so imposed, shall run concurrently. It has also been ordered that out of the fine amount, if r...
Tag this Judgment!