Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)ShimLC250
Sanjay Karol, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1995 passed by the District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 32-N/13 of 1995/1992 titled as Abida Begum v. The Secretary (Health) to the Government of H.P. and Anr., upholding the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1992 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan.2. For the purposes of convenience, the appellant hereinafter is referred to as the 'plaintiff and the respondents are referred to as the 'defendants'.3. Plaintiff filed a suit for damages for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs for failure of the leproscopic operation carried out by the functionaries of the State. On 12.3.1984, the plaintiff underwent a leproscopic operation at the District Hospital of the State of H.P. at Nahan. Despite the same, she conceived and delivered a child on 5.10.1985 and again conceived and delivered a child on 13.12.1987. She once again got herself operated for tubectomy operation on 18.1.1988. The suit was filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : I(2008)DMC176,2008(1)ShimLC198
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is the husband's appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Solan, dismissing the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for divorce on the ground that the petitioner has been treated with cruelty and as such the marriage be annulled by a decree of divorce. The petition was resisted by the respondent on a number of grounds and she had expressed her willingness before the learned trial Court to live with the husband. She was asked to be present in this Court, and, she again expressed her desire to live with her husband. No reconciliation could be effected despite the best efforts made by me.2. This is a rather unfortunate case where petition for divorce has been filed before the learned District Judge by the parties after a period of more than 21 years of marriage. The parties to this petition have one son who is now employed and happily settled in life The allegations...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008ACJ869,AIR2008HP49,2008(1)ShimLC182
Deepak Gupta, J.1. By this judgment the aforesaid four appeals are being disposed of since they arise out of the same accident and involve common questions of law. 2. On 17.2.2001 at about 11.00 p.m. an accident took place between jeep No. HP-12-1711 and truck No. HIS 9211. A number of claim petitions were filed and the learned Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Jagtu, driver of the truck which was owned by Bahadur Singh. Compensation was awarded and the Insurance company was held liable to pay compensation. 3. The dispute raised by the Insurance Company is that on the date of accident the truck was not insured with it. The admitted facts are that a cover note was issued by the appellant-Insurance Company in favour of Bahadur Singh, owner of the truck No. HIS 9211 whereby truck was insured w.e.f. 21.4.2000 to 20.4.2001. The payment of premium was made by Bahadur Singh, owner of the truck, vide cheque No. 989130, dated 19.4.2000, Ex.PW-3/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)ShimLC175
Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, decree dated 26.3.2004, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2001 setting aside the judgment, decree dated 19.3.2001 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur in case No. 74-1 of 1998.2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 24.6.1991 passed by Collector Sadar, Sub Division, Bilaspur and order dated 12.3.1997 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi are void and not binding on appellant inasmuch as the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (for short 'Public Premises Act') is not applicable, the appellant is a tenant in the suit premises. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in possession of the appellant has also been prayed. In case appellant is dispossessed from the suit premises during the pendency of the suit then possession may also be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008ACJ2507,AIR2008HP67,2007(3)ShimLC335
ORDERDev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is defendants' appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge allowing claim of the plaintiffs claiming the benefit of life insurance of the deceased Shri N.K. Seth.2. The undisputed facts are that the deceased Shri N.K. Seth had two policies of life Insurance for the total value of Rs. three lacs including accident insurance. Mr. N.K. Seth, husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, met with an accident while driving his scooter on 24-4-1985 and as a result of the injuries sustained by him he died on 28-4-1985. He was employed as an Accountant in the State Bank of India. He was driving his scooter to his place of work on the ill-fated day when he suffered serious head injuries. He was treated at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla and later on shifted to the PGI, Chandigarh, where he breathed his last on 28-4-1985. The plaintiffs claim that the appellants-defendants have wrongfully denied the insurance claim and, there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(I)ShimLC24
Surinder Singh, J.1. The appellant has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Suit No. 65 of 1996 decided on May 23, 2001, whereby the suit was dismissed.Case of the Plaintiff.2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant hereinafter called the plaintiff was a sole proprietor of rice mill running under the head and style of 'M/s. Vikarant Enterprises', at village Deoli in Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, which was financed by Punjab National Bank (proforma defendant). As per the terms and conditions of the financial assistance, the plaintiff and the Bank (proforma defendant) aforesaid got the building, plant, machinery and stock insured with the defendants-United India Insurance Company Limited, Ropar branch (respondents No. 1 and 2), hereinafter called the defendants, covering the risk of earthquake, fire and floods, for which two separate insurance policies were taken, one in respect of the building, plant and machin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008HP59,2008(I)ShimLC54
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. A challenge has been laid to the order dated 19.4.2003 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kangra at Dharamshala in MACP No. 10-G/2002.2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was driving his tempo bearing No. HP-20-5587 on 13.11.2001 and was proceeding from Kaloha to Pragpur. Bus bearing registration No. HP-55-3486 (M/s. Sayal Bus Service) came from Pragpur side and dashed against the tempo resulting in grievous injuries to the petitioner. The accident took place around 10.30 A.M. He was firstly taken to hospital at Dehra (District Kangra) and thereafter underwent treatment in Bharaj Nursing Home, Jallandhar Road, Hoshiarpur. He remained indoor patient in Bharaj Nursing Home with effect from 13.11.2001 to 17.11.2001 and also underwent surgical operation costing Rs. 80,000/-. He filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Kangra at Dharamshala in the month of January, 2002 claiming the compensation f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)ShimLC105
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. The learned Sessions Judge, Shimla has sent this Reference to this Court with a request by him for a consideration by this Court of the issue as to whether the sentence inflicted upon the respondent-accused deserves to be enhanced or not. This Reference is contained in para (41) of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 41-S/10 of 2006 decided by him on 14th December, 2006. Para (41) for ready reference is reproduced herein below, which reads thus:So far as the sentence part is concerned, I am at pains to notice that the learned trial Magistrate has sentenced the accused/appellant to pay a mere fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In my considered opinion, the sentence imposed upon the accused/appellant by the learned trial Magistrate is grossly inadequate. Therefore, it is fair and in the interest of justice that a reference be made to the Hon'ble High Court with the request to consider the question of enha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (2008)15VST342(NULL)
Sanjay Karol, J.1. Petitioners are auction purchasers and have assailed the order dated 22.12.2006 whereby their application for getting the auctioned property mutated in their name in the revenue record has been rejected and an entry of demand of arrears of sales tax dues of erstwhile owners has been entered into the revenue record. 2. Petitioner is a private limited company. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Himachal Pradesh, respondent No. 2 is Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur District at Nahan, respondent No. 3 is Tehsildar, Nahan, respondent No. 4 is Secretary (Excise and Taxation), Govt. of H.P., respondent No. 5 is Excise and Taxation Officer, Nahan and respondent No. 6 is State Bank of Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudicating the controversy in the present writ petition are as under:For various loans/advances received from respondent No. 6- Bank, M/s Eastman Rubber and M/s Eastman Tread (hereinafter referred to as borrower) mortgaged t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(I)ShimLC45
Sanjay Karol, J.1. This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 5th January, 1994 passed by District Judge in Civil Appeal No. 179 of 1982 titled as Om Prakash v. Jagan Nath, whereby the judgment and decree dated 23rd March, 1982 passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Dharamsala has been set aside.2. For the purpose of convenience, the appellant herein is referred to as the 'plaintiff' and the respondent is referred to as the 'defendant'.3. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:1. What is the effect of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reform Act, 1972 in the present suit?2. Whether Courts below has no jurisdiction to try the present suit, if so its effect?3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, if so its effects?4. Whether the Full Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble High Court Chunia v. Jindu has been wrongly and improperly applied to the present case, if so its effects?4. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the o...
Tag this Judgment!