Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008CriLJ1350
Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18/19-8-2003. passed by learned Sessions Judge, Marall, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1998, whereby the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused), has been convicted and sentenced, under Section 376(2), IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Out of fine awarded, whole amount shall be payable to the prosecutrix on realization.2. Facts in brief are that Khem Chand, brother-in-law of prosecutrix and husband of P.W. 2 Rita Devi died after consuming poison on 27-8-1994. The police implicated P.W. 2 Rita and Prem Chand husband of prosecutrix in that case that the poison was administered by these two persons to Khem Chand. This case was investigated by the accused. On 27-8-1994, at about 11 p.m. accused along with other officials went to the house of the prosecutrix and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008ACJ2332,2007(3)ShimLC341
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Suit No. 117 of 1991 decided on 1.9.2000 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant.2. The undisputed facts are that the bridge over Garali Khud known as 'Garali Khud Bridge' was damaged on 7.8.1984. This bridge was thereafter closed to all vehicular and other traffic. On 18.9.1988 at about 5 p.m. the plaintiff Munish Kumar was travelling on his motor cycle No. PAH 3340 from village Badoh to Garoh in Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. One Ravinder Kumar was travelling as the pillion rider. The bridge falls on this route. Plaintiff went on to the bridge but since the bridge was incomplete and two spans were missing he along with his motor cycle and pillion rider fell off the bridge into the khud and sustained injuries.3. The disputed facts are that according to the plaintiff there was no blockade at the bridge and there was no indication or any sig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)ShimLC394
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. In the impugned order dated 30th June, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, the application of the petitioners filed under Order 20 Rule 18 had been practically rejected even though a direction indeed had been issued in the operative part of the Order for sending of the preliminary decree sheet and the jamabandis etc. to the Collector for effecting partition of the property in question. Let us notice the facts first.2. A suit for possession by way of partition was filed by the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, being Civil Suit No. 53 of 1996. Out of many Issues which were framed in the said suit, Issue No. 1 alone was relevant for determining and adjudicating upon the contentious and rival claims of the parties in the suit. Issue No. 1 reads thus:1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession by way of partition of abadi land in suit to the extent of half share as prayed for? OPP.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008HP31
ORDERDev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is the defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge affirming the findings of the learned Sub Judge in a suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiff praying for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from raising any construction over the suit land. The suit was amended during the pendency of the appeal and a decree for possession was prayed.2. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for payment prohibitory injunction restraining and prohibiting the appellant-defendant Sita Ram (who was also a defendant in the suit) from raising any construction over the land comprised in Khasra No. 397/204, measuring 3 bighas, situated in Mauza Bhatanwali, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur on the allegations that the plaintiff-respondent is owner in possession of this land and the appellant-Ravi Kant and his father have no right, title or interest in it. It was averred that they were strangers an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(I)ShimLC81
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the LPA filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 14.11.2006, passed in CWP No. 46 of 2000.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was employed as Deputy Manager with appellant No. 1. He was posted as Branch Manager at Sera Branch from July 1994 to July 1996. During this period, he was alleged to have committed a number of acts of misconduct for which his explanation was called, which was not found to be satisfactory. Hence he was charge-sheeted. The charges as against the respondent were as under:Charge No. IYou violated Bank's laid down instructions in regard to sanction of loan to your relative, self and others.Charge No. IIYou misutilised your official position in granting advance to certain borrower, in excess of your, discretionary power. You also did not report the irregularity to your Controlling Authority.Charge No. IllYou committed various acts of omission and commission while handling certain transact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)ShimLC270
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition as culled out from the pleadings of the parties are that a charge-sheet was issued to the respondent No. 3 on 4th October, 1994. The Inquiry Officer was appointed and he had submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority dated 24.7.1997. The Board of Directors of the petitioner-federation has not agreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry officer with regard to the charges No. 1, 2 and 12 respectively. The Board of Directors had come to the conclusion that the charges No. 1, 2 and 12 stood proved against the respondent No. 3. The inquiry report was furnished to the Disciplinary authority on 24th July, 1997. A memorandum was issued to the respondent No. 3 on 11th May, 2000 enclosing therewith the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 24th July, 1997, It has come in the memorandum that the Board of Directors had agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charges No. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008ACJ2058,2007(2)ShimLC489
Kuldip Singh, J.1. The insurer is in appeal, against award dated 14.8.2003, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in MAC Case No. 114 of 2000, awarding Rs. 1,00,000/-, compensation to claimant for damage to its building. The insurer has been directed to deposit the compensation within two months from the date of the award, failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of the award, shall also be payable. The parties are referred in the same manner, as in the impugned award.2. The facts in brief, as alleged in the petition are that petitioner-claimant is an association. The truck No. HIA 6835 on 24.7.2000 at village Bamta while crossing the toll tax barrier went out of control and rolled down about 25 feet and rested on the building of the petitioner causing damage to the building. The petitioner was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, from the industry and as a result of damage to the building, the business of the petitioner suffered badly. The accident to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2007CriLJ4546,2007(2)ShimLC387
Surinder Singh, J.1. The appellant was put on trial, under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 60/7 of 2005/2004, for committing rape on his daughter-in-law, continuously for about three months against her wishes. On the conclusion of the trial the Additional Sessions Judge held him guilty and passed the sentence as under:----------------------------------------------------------Under To suffer rigorous imprisonmentSection for seven years and to pay a fine376 IPC of Rs. 10,000/- and in default ofpayment of fine he shall furtherundergo imprisonment for threemonths----------------------------------------------------------Under To suffer rigorous imprisonmentSection for one year and to pay a fine of506 IPC Rs. 2,000/- and in default ofpayment of fine he shall furtherundergo imprisonment for onemonth.----------------------------------------------------------2. The factual matrix of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)ShimLC451
Kuldip Singh, J.1. The original defendant Paras Ram had filed this appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 17.6.1995, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1994. The parties are referred in this judgment, as they were referred in the trial court.2. The facts in brief are that plaintiff Roop Chand filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction that he be declared owner in possession of the suit land and defendant has got no right, title or interest over the suit land, plaintiff is not bound by the wrong revenue entries appearing in the name of Ram Chand deceased. Consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction has also been prayed against the defendant from causing interference in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff on the suit land.3. The further case of the plaintiff is that Ram Chand was the owner and plaintiff was tenant under said Ram Chand on the suit land. Ram Chand had died without leaving wife...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008ACJ433
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for compensation.Facts of the case:2. Brief facts of the case are that Soma Devi, wife of plaintiff No. 1 and mother of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5, was motivated for a family planning operation by the defendants. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 were incharge of the operation/surgery and actual surgery of tubectomy was performed on Soma Devi by defendant No. 4. It has been pleaded that no proper medical care was taken and the plaintiff's wife, who was hale and hearty, died as a result of negligence of defendant No. 4 who performed surgery on her. The plaintiffs have alleged that there were no proper facilities for surgery at Civil Dispensary, Kalol and nor any anaesthetist was attending the patients.3. In reply, the defendants denied any negligence and pleaded that the surgery was performed under local and ...
Tag this Judgment!