Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1994CriLJ2539
ORDERA.L. Vaidya, J.1. A criminal case vide F.I.R. No. 97 of 1993 under Section 379/34, I.P.C. for removal of the vehicle under reference from the possession of Suresh Kumar, respondent No. 2 was registered against the present petitioner, Krishan Lal and four other persons, named, S/Shri Onkar Chand, Vish-wanath, Surinder Kumar and Prem Chand in June, 1993 at Police Station, Bilaspur. The vehicle under reference was taken into possession during investigation by the police. The present petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 submitted separate applications under Section 457, Cr. P. C. for the release of that vehicle which happened to be a Maruti Van No. HPY-848.2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, after hearing the parties, ordered the release of the vehicle in question in favour of Shri Suresh Kumar, if not required in any other case. That too on Suresh Kumar's furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. two lacs with one surety of the like amount undertaking to produce the vehic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973HP81
D.B. Lal, C.J. 1. These are two connected and consolidated regular second appeals, and can conveniently be disposed of by a single judgment. Both the suits related to the right of pre-emption claimed by the plaintiffs on the basis of their being co-sharers, along with the vendors. In both suits, the vendees are strangers to the family of the vendors. RSA No. 169/67 is directed against the decision of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby agreeing with the finding of the Senior Sub-Judge. Kangra. he has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs Kalu Ram and three others and repelled their contention that the notification No. 4669 dated 6th March. 1917 (hereinafter to be referred as the notification of 1917) does not hold the field because of the amendment of Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act 1913 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1913) by the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act. 1960 (hereinafter to be referred as the Amendment Act of 1960). The plaintiffs in thatsuit claimed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(2)ShimLC316
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This writ petition by the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the employer) is directed against the award of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 20.6.2002 whereby he has held that the action of the employer in dismissing the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the employee) from the bank's services is not justified and has ordered the reinstatement of the employee into service with full back-wages, continuity of service and all consequential benefits including senority etc. The employer has also been held liable to pay interest (c) 8% p.a. on the back-wages from the date they became due and payable.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the employee joined the services of the employer in the year 1978. He was posted at Shimla in 1982. On 9.8.1989 the CBI registered a case against the employee under Sections 420, 468, 467 and 471 IPC. The al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972HP89
D.B. Lal, J.1. This second appeal filed by the plaintiffs arises out of the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 1968 of the District Judge, Dharamsala. Lachhi Ram and five others who are the plaintiffs, came to Court with the allegations, that Ghansara Singh and two others who are the defendants, being proprietors of Khasra Nos. 1025 and 1048 of Tikka Andreta of Palampur Tehsil, have erected a hedging so that their cattle which used to graze over the disputed land, have been stopped from going there. The plaintiffs based their claim on the allegations, that they as well as their ancestors have been using the disputed land for pasturage and their cattle used to go there and rest for the day. It was only recently that the defendants created the obstruction and hence the plaintiffs claimed for a declaration that they had acquired a right of pasturage and that a permanent injuncion is also to be granted in their favour and against the defendants, restraining the latter from interfering i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972HP117
D.B. Lal, J. 1. This second appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 24th June, 1968 of the District Judge, Kangra, whereby reversing the decision of the Sub-Judge First Class Una, he has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff which was for recovery of possession over landed property which was gifted by the plaintiff's ancestor to the defendants. Shrimati Kartari appeared in Court with the allegations, that her mother Shrimati Basanti was the exclusive owner of 20 Kanals and 16 Marias of land situate in 'Mauza' Badhara (P. S. Una) of which the Khasra numbers were given in the plaint. It was alleged that Shrimati Basanti was an old, feeble, helpless and illiterate woman. She was 'paroanashin' and was not in a sound state of mind as she used to remain sick. In fact, the plaintiff used to look after her and usually resided with her as she was her only daughter and had become widow within four years of her marriage. The plaintiff has no issues of her own. According to plaintiff, he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : III(2005)ACC386,2006ACJ1326
Deepak Gupta, J.1. The appellant Chetan, a minor, was aged about 11 years at the time of the accident. He was a student of class VII. On 16.4.1996, when he was travelling with his parents on a scooter, the same met with an accident with bus No. HP 22-0581 owned by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation and driven by Ramesh Kumar, respondent No. 3.2. As a result of the accident, the claimant suffered serious injuries, in which his pelvis was fractured and he also suffered fracture of the inferior pubic rami. He was initially taken to the hospital at Namhol on 16.4.1996, from where he was referred to the District Hospital at Bilaspur. The doctors at District Hospital, Bilaspur, referred him to the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla, where he remained admitted from 17.4.1996 to 6.6.1996. During this period he underwent surgery in that hospital. Three of his teeth were also broken in the accident.3. The claimant being a minor filed the present claim petition before the Mot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1995CriLJ800
ORDERA.L. Vaidya, J.1. Shri Mahesh Arora, Manager (Project)-cum-Secretary, M/s. Auro Spinning Mills, Baddi-Nalagarh, a unit of Vardhman Spinning and General Mills Ltd., Ludhiana, the present respondent No. 2, submitted a complaint under Section 420 IPC against the present petitioner before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, on 28th January, 1993. The learned Magistrate on that very day ordered the complaint to be forwarded to the S.H.O. Police Station, Barotiwala, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for further action as per law. F.I.R. No. 23/93 dated 24th February, 1993 under Section 420 IPC at Police Station, Barotiwala, as such, was registered against the present petitioner on the basis of the accusations made in the complaint.2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties the relevant accusations made against the present petitioner in the complaint which have been made the base of the F.I.R., referred to above, are essential to be t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : I(1991)ACC141,AIR1991HP18
Bhawani Singh, J. 1. This appeal by the claimant, Gurcharan Singh, assails the award in M.A.C. Petition No. 8 of 1988, decided on 3-6-1989, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, thereby dismissing the claim preferred by the claimant, claiming compensation from the respondents to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the personal injuries sustained by him. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 6-9-1987, the claimant, a pillion rider with his friend Amar Singh, was going on scooter No. Pun-792 at about 11-30 p.m. after seeing the circus show near the Bus-stand, Una. As soon as they reached near the chowk of new bus stand, Car No. HIU-1000, driven by respondent No. 3, and owned by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, came from behind and hit the scooter with the result that the scooterists fell down along with the scooter and sustained injuries. In the case of Amar Singh, the injuries were quite simple and he did not advance any claim for compensation whereas the claimant in the present case sus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1985HP71
ORDERV.P. Gupta, J.1. Shri Narain Prasad Poddar(hereinafter (referred as) deceased) was working as Assistant Commercial Manager in Giovanola Binny Ltd. (hereinafter company) carrying on its business at Cochin. He was required to visit various places and meet parties in connection with the business dealings of the company. The company in the year 1971, entered into a contract with defendant 1 for carrying out various works at the Baira Siul Hydro-Electric Project (hereinafter the project) for a total sum of Rs. 98,34,430/-. In connection with these works the deceased was to represent the company and have discussions and consultations with the project authorities.2. Plaintiff 1 is the wife, plaintiffs 2 to 4 are minor daughters, plaintiff 5 is father andplaintiff 6 is the mother of the deceased.3. The plaintiffs allege that the deceased arrived at Surangani on or about 4-1-1974where the office of defendant 1 is located. Defendant 1 for carrying out the project owns and maintains a field ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2003CriLJ4223
R.L. Khurana, J.1. The four respond ents, Surinder Mohan, Biru Ram, Shashi Pal and Amar Singh, hereinafter referred to as A1, A2, A3 and A4, respectively, were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions case No. 8 of 1988 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharmshala. Vide order dated 8-5-1990 all the four respondents were ac quitted. 2. By virtue of the present appeal, the State has assailed the acquittal of the four respondents as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal was dismissed on 2-1-1998 by a Division Bench of this Court solely on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had failed to comply with the mandatory directions contained in Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) Section 306, Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as no statement of the approver was recorded by him during the committal proceeding which vitiated the committal of the respondents to the Court of Se...
Tag this Judgment!