Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-01-2002
Reported in : AIR2003HP5
Arun Kumar Goel, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Suit No. 34 of 1982 on November 2/ 3, 1989. By means of impugned decree, suit of the appellants, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Plaintiffs') has been partly decreed against Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Defendant No. 1'), with proportionate costs in terms of the decree, dismissing rest of the claim as set up in the plaint. Defendant No. 1 has filed the Cross-Objections against the decree that has been passed against it.2. A suit for recovery of Rs. 6,32,058/- was filed by the plaintiffs against defendant No.1 and other respondents who were also arrayed as defendants No. 2 to 4 in the suit, and all of them hereinafter are being referred hereto as defendants. Defendant No. 1 is Kullu Municipal Committee, defendant No. 2 is the Secretary of the Committee. Defendant No. 3 is Deputy Commissioner, Kullu and defendant No. 4 is the State of Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-18-2002
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
Decided on : May-25-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3949
M.R. Verma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused convict against his conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He is accused of pouring kerosine oil on the Smt. Bholi Devi and setting her ablaze on 17-5-1999 as a consequence whereof she died on 18-5-1999. The defence of the accused is that Sidhu alias Mohinder, husband of the deceased, is a notorious criminal and deals in the distillation and sale of illicit liquor and the police officials of Police Post, Nagrota Surian, where the report was lodged, are helping Sidhu in his work of illicit distillation whereas the accused had been objected to it. Therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the case.2. During the course of hearing of this appeal when the learned counsel for the appellant was reading statement of Head Constable Parma Nand (PW-15), who partially investigated the case, a doubt arose about the correct recording of the English version of his statement to the following effect:It is inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-26-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3832
ORDERLokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. In Sessions Trial No. 2 l-S/7 of 1998, the Sessions Judge, Shimla, convicted the appellant-accused for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code So and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with the fine of Rs. 1000 / -. In default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal. The prosecutrix (PW-1) is the wife of Raju (PW-3) . They are the residents of village Chadach, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla. In the year 1997, PW Raju was employed as Chowikidar by Bija Ram (PW 5) to look after his orchard at his 'Dogri' (out house) located about 1 Km. away from his village Kuhl. Both the husband and wife started living in the Dogri of PW Bija Ram.2. The case of the prosecution against the appellant is that on 25-5-1997, PW 3 left the 'Dogri' around 6.00 a.m. for village Shantha to attend a local fair. Prosecutrix rem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-20-2002
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
Decided on : Oct-25-2002
Reported in : 2003ACJ865,AIR2002HP164
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. Appellants are the defendants whereas the respondent is the plaintiff and they will be referred to as such in this judgment. The defendants are aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 19-11-1993 passed by the District Judge, Shimla, whereby their appeal was dismissed and the decree and judgment dated 2-5-1991 of the Senior Sub-Judge, Shimla was affirmed. The Senior Sub-Judge had decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs for declaration that the repudiation of the claims of the plaintiff with respect to policies Exts. PA and PB conveyed to her vide letters Exts. PC and PD is an act of arbitrariness and is null and void and the letters Exts. PC and PD were of no consequence as against the rights of the plaintiff. The suit was further decreed to the effect that the defendants shall pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the plaintiff under policies Exts. PA and PB along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1-7-1983 till the date of payment on filing of cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-27-2002
Reported in : (2002)IIILLJ768HP
Arun Kumar Goel, J. 1. Appellant was plaintiff in the trial Court and is being referred to as such. He filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order of dismissal dated August 6, 1981 passed by defendant No. 3 and order of compulsory retirement dated May 5, 1982 passed by defendant No. 2 is null void and inoperative. Further relief was also claimed by him of service benefits etc. As per averments made in the plaint, he was employed as a Class IV in January, 1956 by the Mining Engineer, Government of India, Salt Department, Mandi and was confirmed as such by the Deputy Salts Commissioner, Mandi. He was subsequently appointed as Lower Division Clerk by the said Deputy Salt Commissioner with Headquarter at Jaipur w.e.f. March 27, 1963.2. Further case set up was that Salt Department of Government of India was disbanded and converted into company known as Hindustan Salt Ltd. (a Government of India undertaking). Mandi salt mines were also handed over to this company along with its sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-25-2002
Reported in : AIR2003HP55
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. The following points are referred to this larger Bench of three Judges :--(i) If in a given case the actual possession of the acquired land is taken before the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act or from the date of taking possession under Section 16 or 17 of the Act, whether the claimant is entitled to additional compensation under Section 23 (1 -A) of the Act from the date of taking actual possession or from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act? (ii) Whether the interest under Section 28 of the Act is to be paid from the date the possession is taken under Section 16 or 17 of the Act? 2. So far first point of reference is concerned, it is no longer res Integra. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2002) 1 SCC 142 : (AIR 2001 SC 2951) while interpreting the 'expression whichever is earlier in Section 23(1-A) of the Act' have held in para 6 :'...... the starting point for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-04-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3532
W.B. Verma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7-7-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan whereby appellant/accused (hereafter referred to as 'the accused') had been convicted under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and to simple imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the prosecution against the accused, in brief, is that the prosecutrix (PW-1) was studying in 4th standard in Primary School, Kem Wali in the year 1999. On the asking of the accused, the prosecutrix along with Nisha (PW-11), Reena, Pushpa Devi (PW-12) and Gurdeep had gone to Nand on 5-10-1999 to attend the tournament. On 6-10-1999 at a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-25-2002
Reported in : II(2002)ACC98,2003ACJ262
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. This case came up on 10.7.2002 for consideration of application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6, claimants for the release of the amount deposited in this writ and two of them, viz., Yogita Mehta (respondent No. 4) and Yogesh Mehta (respondent No. 5) having attained majority. At that time learned Counsel for the parties jointly submitted that instead of considering the application for release, this matter needs to be heard finally and disposed of at this stage. Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, submitted that he does not want to file any reply to the writ petition, but will challenge the right of the petitioner to maintain this writ under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award that too on quantum, and will support the award on the basis of materials on record of the Tribunal below. It was for this reason that we finally heard the arguments in this case and reserved the jud...
Tag this Judgment!