Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-10-2006
Reported in : 2006(2)ShimLC237
K.C. Sood, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of these two petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India as both the petitions arise out of a common order of the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation) also exercising the revisional jurisdiction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.Relevant facts.2. Late Sardar Santokh Singh, father and predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Surinder Singh, being displaced person, purchased the property known as '31 Cosy Nook Estate', Shimla in an auction held on September 11, 1954 by the District Rent and Managing Officer, Ambala. This property was an Evacuee Property and was placed in the Evacuee Property Pool having been vested in the Central Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. The property was purchased by Sardar Santokh Singh for a sum of rupees 52,000/-. The boundaries of the property sold in auction were descr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-28-2006
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
Decided on : Apr-03-2006
Reported in : AIR2006HP97,2006(1)ShimLC397
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi in H.M. Petition No. 27 of 1996 whereby the learned trial Court has granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.2. The brief facts relevant for the decision of the case are that the parties were married at Amritsar on 6.2.1994 according to Hindu rites. They last resided together in Mandi till December, 1995. Thereafter the wife went and resided with her parents at Amritsar. The husband instituted a petition for grant of divorce on 18.10.1996. The divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty. The instances of cruelty detailed in the petition are as follows:-(a) The wife on account of 'Sukhna' undertaken before marriage was to go to Nanaksar in Ludhiana on every Purnima (full moon) for five months after the marriage. Though there was direct bus to Ludhiana from Mandi, but the wife would insist to go to N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-19-2006
Reported in : 2006(2)ShimLC354
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of two appeals being RFA No. 136 of 1996, and RFA No. 153 of 1996 as they arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in Civil Suit No. 120-S/l of 1985/87 decided on 8.8.1996.2. Madan Gopal, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,05000/- against Het Ram and Hem Raj, hereinafter referred to as the defendants, on the ground that the defendants by falsely implicating him in a criminal case had caused great harm and loss to him. Rs. 5,000/- was claimed as cost of defending the prosecution; Rs. 50,000 was claimed on account of loss of business and loss of reputation and Rs. 1,50,000/- for physical and mental agony and torture i.e. Rs. 2,05,000 in all.3. Defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1. Admittedly on 19.3.1985 a fire took place in the residential house of the defendants in village Theog. At about 1.45 p.m. on 19.3.1985, defendant No. 1 lodged a First I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-10-2006
Reported in : AIR2006HP108,2006(2)ShimLC9
K.C. Sood, J.1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of reversal rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu on July 11, 1995. This second appeal was admitted by Goel J. on July 15, 1997 with the observations :Admit on substantial questions of law at Nos. 4, 5 and 8 mentioned at page 10 of the paper book.Substantial questions of law at page 10 reads:4. Whether in the absence of specific plea as to which religion the plaintiff belong, findings in the matter of regulation of succession could not be recorded?5. Whether in the matter of succession, the parties to the suit are governed by custom or by the provision of Hindu Succession Act. In case of custom, what are the particulars of the custom and whether the same is valid?8. Whether the parties to the suit in the matter of succession are governed by the custom known as Rewaj-e-Zamindara, if so, the same has been specifically pleaded or proved?2. When the appeal was being heard, learned Counsel for the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-22-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2862,2006(2)ShimLC78
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the complainant-Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the NCB) against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla dated 27.10.2005 in so far as he has rejected the prayer of the NCB for recalling two witnesses Balbir Singh and Surender Singh.2. The facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the NCB filed a complaint in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla Under Sections 8, 18, 20, 25, 27A and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) against the accused Yuvraj Gurang and Gurusharan Sharma @ Gulshan. The allegations, in brief, are that: on prior information received the NCB carried out a raid in the premises occupied by Yuvraj Gurang in the basement of Hari Bhawan at Shoghi on National High Way No. 22. This building is stated to be owned by the second accused Gurusharan Sharma who is running Sharma Dhabha therein. Durin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-03-2006
Reported in : 2007(1)ShimLC102
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. Because of the order passed on 24.7.2006 this case has come up to the Division Bench for hearing and disposal.2. The background in which this matter has come up for consideration has been spelt out in details in the order dated 18.7.2006 passed by the Single Judge of this Court. To re-capitulate and to appreciate the subject-matter of controversy involved in this petition in its proper perspective, it shall be advantageous to take note of some brief but salient features of the case.3. Under Section 24(1) (b) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (1987 Act, for short) , it has been provided that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller, may, within fifteen days etc. prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority having the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeals.4. The only exception with respect to the aforesaid right to prefer an appeal is the exclusion of the orders passed under Section 16 of the 1987 Act. Clause (b) is of cours...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-20-2006
Reported in : 2007ACJ1874,AIR2007HP34,2007(1)ShimLC258
ORDERDeepak Gupta, J.1. The only question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the amount deposited by the appellant-owner from time to time in pursuance to an award passed by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has first to be adjusted towards interest or costs or to the principal amount as awarded by the Tribunal.2. The law is well settled that under the provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure the payments, if any, made by the JD have first to be adjusted towards the amount of costs and interest and only thereafter towards the principal amount due unless the parties have agreed and specified to the contrary, This position of law has been settled by the Apex Court in Meghraj v. Mst. Bayabai : [1970]1SCR523 wherein has been held as follows:The normal rule in the case of a debt due with interest is that any payment made by the debtor is in the first instance to be applied towards satisfaction of interest and thereafter to the principal.3. In the present ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-05-2006
Reported in : (2007)IILLJ765HP,2007(1)ShimLC70
Surjit Singh, J.1. Through the present writ petition the petitioner has sought quashing of orders dated 3rd July, 1997 and 20th August, 1998, whereby he has been ordered to be removed from the service of respondent No. 1, by way of punishment. In the alternative a direction has been sought for holding fresh inquiry in which the writ petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to engage a defence assistant of his choice.2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this writ petition are that the petitioner was initially employed as Clerk-cum-Cashier with respondent No. 1. Thereafter he was promoted as Head Clerk and then as Assistant Manager. In the year of 1988 he was posted in the capacity of Assistant Manager in Kaza Branch of respondent No. 1 - Bank. On further promotion, he was posted as Branch Manager in Kaza Branch itself on 27th August, 1990. He remained posted as such in the said Branch up to August, 1993. On 27.10.1993 the petitioner was placed under suspension for certain a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-06-2006
Reported in : 2007ACJ923,2007(1)ShimLC30
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. An award was passed on 27th February, 2003 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi in Claim Petition No. 36 of 1998 relating to and arising out of the death of Dr. N.C. Sharma in an accident involving his official jeep and a truck tipper No. PB-110-9313. The petitioner Sukhbir Singh in this petition was respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid Claim Petition. Respondent No. 2 herein Ashok Kumar was respondent No. 2 in the Claim Petition. Respondent No. 1 - National Insurance Company was the 3rd respondent in the Claim Petition. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 were the owner and the driver respectively of the truck tipper No. PH-110-9313.2. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 - National Insurance Company in answer to the Claim Petition, it was alleged and pleaded that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Based on the pleadings of the parties, following five issues were framed by the Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!