Court : Himachal Pradesh
Kuldip Singh, J.1. The petitioner through this petition has prayed for quashing of order/ notification dated 5.6.2004 Annexure P-18 vide which the petitioner has been removed from service by respondent No. 2 on the basis of recommendations of respondent No. 1, quashing of enquiry proceedings including enquiry report dated 4.2.2004 and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. 5.6.2004 with all consequential benefits including seniority, arrears of salary alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum.2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that one K.C. Sadyal was posted as Superintendent of Police at Una, who had been secretly monitoring the activities, functioning of Judicial Officers and their staff. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 3.10.1990 Annexure P-1 to K.C. Sadyal asking him on whose instance he was monitoring the functioning and supervising the Judicial Officers and their staff, who replied vide letter dated 8.10.1990 Annexure P-2 and had sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC482
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. CWP No. 2495/2009 has been filed by the Himachal Pradesh B.Ed. Colleges Welfare Association seeking quashing of notification dated 13.7.2009 and also for quashing the imposition of condition of 50% marks and CWP No. 2781/2009 has been filed on behalf of the students' community assailing the imposition of condition of 50% marks in qualifying examination.3. The respondent-University has issued prospectus/brochure for admission to B.Ed. course in Department of Education and Colleges of Education in Himachal Pradesh for the academic session 2009-2010. Para 2 (d) of the prospectus mentions that respondent No. 3 has approved total 100 seats, out of which 50 seats in Non-Medical Stream, 30 in Medical Stream, 15 in Arts Stream and 5 in Commerce Stream, which are to be filled up as per 100 point roster. This dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
R.B. Misra, Acting C.J.1. This Original Side Appeal has been directed against the order dated 13.12.2005 of the learned Single Judge in OMP No. 301 of 2005 in Civil Suit No. 38 of 2005, whereby he has dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' for convenience sake).2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Original Side Appeal are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 3.7.2002 executed between respondent-defendant No. 1 and plaintiff in respect of the land as detailed in the plaint and also for declaration to the effect that document dated 24.7.2002 and 25.7.2002 be declared void and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff and the sale deeds No. 1054 dated 19.9.2003, 1104 dated 3.10.2003 and 77 dated 17.1.2004 be declared illegal, void and inoperative against his rights. The respondents-defendants (hereinafter re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Deepak Gupta, J.1. All the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of one judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track court), Kangra in sessions Trial No. 6 of 2004 decided on 8.11.2004. The prosecution storey, in brief, is that on 18.3.2003 at about mid night Raja Ram deceased, husband of complainant Pritama Devi, PW-1 had gone to his fields to drive out some stray cattle. He was returning home along the path towards the back of his house when dog of accused Kartar Singh started barking and attempted to bite him. Raja Ram raised a noise and pelted stones at the dog. Hearing this noise Pritama Devi, PW-1, her daughter Anjana and son Neeraj went to the lentil of their house from where they saw the accused persons Jaswant Singh, Surjit, Kartar, Kapil Dev, Rajnikant and Surinder Kumar giving beatings to Raja Ram. Thereafter, all the accused dragged Raja Ram towards their house and tethered his legs with a Citrus tree an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC411
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala, in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1994 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.2. The prosecution story in brief is that one Bimla Devi, who is a Nepali, was residing in a hut at Ghera near Gaj Project site alongwith her husband Man Bahadur. They had three children. One daughter, Lovely aged about 5 years, younger daughter (name withheld) aged about 2-1/2 years and son Veeru aged about one year. Both Bimla Devi and her husband worked as labourers in the Gaj Project. The respondent-Amin Chand, who was also a labourer, lived in another hut nearby. It is alleged that on 28.11.1993 at about 4.30 p.m. Bimla Devi and her husband were sitting in their hut. Their children were playing in the hut of the accused. Bimla Devi heard the cries of her younger daughter. She rushed towards the hut of the accused. When she rea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC434
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.10.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahar in civil appeal No. 6 of 1998.2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he as well as other co-sharers are owners in possession of the land measuring 0-25-25 hectares comprised in Khata No. 88, Khatauni No. 273 and Khasra No. 353 situated in Chak Gasoh, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla as the same is no more redeemable. The case set up by the plaintiff is that the suit land earlier comprised in Khasra Nos. 61 and 62 measuring 3-8 bighas shown in the jamabandi for the year 1973-74 was recorded in the ownership of Devta Sahib of Gasoh and that the plaintiff and other co-sharers were recorded as the mortgagee and the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 47-CA/13 of 1997.2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit for recovery of possession of land on the averment that the maternal grand-father (his Nana) late Sh. Munnu Ram was owner in possession of the land detailed in Khata Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Khatauni No. 10 min/29, 35, 43, 50 and 12/57, Khasra Nos. 257/209 measuring 1-8 bighas, Khasra No. 258/209 measuring 1-8 bighas, Khasra No. 256/209 measuring 0-10 bighas, Khasra No. 261/209 measuring 1-6 bighas, Khasra No. 140 measuring 0-2 bighas and Khasra No. 260/209 measuring 6-14 bighas respectively situated in village Dhown, Tehsil and District...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. The aforesaid two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, as both the appeals have been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', against the award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, dated 30.3.2005, vide which the learned Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,27,582/-, alongwith interest, as against the Insurance Company. FAO No. 224 of 2005 has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company and FAO No. 454 of 2005 has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the aforesaid award of the learned Commissioner.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an application under Section 22 of the Act was filed by the claimant as against respondent No. 1 being the owner and as against the Insurance Company, who was impleaded as respondent No. 2 (appellant in FAO No. 224 of 2005), being the insurer of the vehicle. The claimant alleged that he was working as a driver on Tanker No. PBW-7847 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC374
R.B. Misra, J.1. In the present petition, the petitioner is aggrieved of the remarks of the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 1996-97 to the effect that the petitioner remained absent during the most part of reporting year and the working of the petitioner remained poor during this period. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the remarks appear to vague and are based on surmises and conjectures. The petitioner was never informed/conveyed qua his deficiencies/shortcomings. The remarks have been recorded without adhering to the settled position of law in this regard.2. For the purpose of adjudicating the issues and the grievances of the petitioner, it is necessary to analyses the decisions of the different Court given from time to time.2(a). In the State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher : AIR 1996 SC 1328, para 15, the Supreme Court has observed that the object of writing confidential report is two fold, i.e. to give an opportunity to the officer to rem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2010CriLJ635
V.K. Ahuja , J.1. This judgment shall dispose of an appeal filed by the appellants Malkiat Singh and Vaishno Devi, through jail against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 13.4.2006. The second appeal has been filed by appellant Jasbir Singh through jail against the said judgment passed by the learned trial Court. All the appellants have assailed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court upon them, vide which the appellants were held guilty as under:Appellants Malkiat Singh and Vaishno Devi UNDER SECTION 120-B: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each. Appellant Jasbir Singh UNDER SECTION 302 I.P.C.: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, all the appellants were to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. They were further sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in ...
Tag this Judgment!