Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC260
Surjit Singh, J.1. State has appealed against the judgment, dated 2nd January, 2004, whereby respondents Khoob Ram and Subash Bhalla, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 468, 471, 420, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted by the trial Magistrate. 2. Case of the prosecution, as per evidence adduced during trial, is like this. Respondent Khoob Ram was posted as Patwari in Mauza Sirigarh, Tehsil Ani, District Kullu, in the year 1966. Respondent Subash Bhalla is a resident of Chanigarh. This respondent No. 2 Subash Bhalla wanted to purchase land in Solan District of Himachal Pradesh. However, he is not an agriculturist, within the meaning of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and, therefore, cannot purchase any land in the State of Himachal Pradesh, unless he obtains permission from the Government. With a view to purchasing a big chunk of land to execute his plans, as a builder, in the area of Solan District, he e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. The husband of the petitioner Sh. Inder Singh was appointed as a Driver in the respondent-corporation on 8.12.1987. A notice was issued to Sh. Inder Singh on 11.2.1999 whereby the appointing authority had come to a conclusion that he was not a fit person to be retained in the service of the corporation and penalty of removal was proposed. He was granted 15 days time to submit his representation. He filed reply/representation on 5.3.1999. He was removed from the service of the respondent- corporation vide office order dated 25.4.2000. He preferred an appeal against the same on 29.7.2000 and as per the averments contained in the petition it was rejected on 9.4.2001. 2. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate has strenuously argued that late husband of the petitioner Sh. Inder Singh could not be removed without holding regular inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. She also contended that Sh. Inder Singh was permanent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC275
Surinder Singh, J.1. The above titled criminal revision petitions involve a common question of law and facts, hence taken up together for its decision. 2. In these revision petitions, the petitioner herein, is an accused convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation (different amount) in default to undergo further imprisonment, in each of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in short the 'Act', by the learned trial Court which were unsuccessfully challenged by him before the court of Sessions. 3. The factual matrix depicts that the petitioner was running a business under the head and style of 'M/s Onkar Enterprises' at Mandi. He deputed some agents including the private respondents in these revision petitions to make members and to collect money and promised them to supply the electronic items like Refrigerator, T.V. and Washing Machines etc. to such customers/ at the end of the scheme in the month...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant through jail against the judgment, dated 28.9.2006, of the court of ld. Sessions Judge, Chamba, vide which the appellant was held guilty under Sections 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302 IPC: Imprisonment for life and to paya fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In defaultof payment of fine, to undergorigorous imprisonment for afurther period of two years.Under Section 506 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for oneyear.2. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 6.2.2004, at about 12.05 p.m., a telephonic message was received at Police Station, Sadar, Chamba from one Manjit Kumar that one Joginder Kumar has murdered his son and further proceedings be conducted in this regard. This information was entered in rapat rojnamcha No. 9, dated 6.2.2004, by the Inspector/SHO Khub Ram, who proceeded to the spot alongwith other police officials. He reache...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Deepak Gupta, J.1. The aforesaid four appeals are being disposed of by a common judgement since they arise out of one accident. The claimants Waryam Singh and Raj Kumar filed two separate claim petitions. The allegations made in these claim petitions were that on 14th June, 2000 they were engaged as labourers and were travelling in truck No. HP-20-0199 as labourers. This truck met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, Surinder Kumar, alleged to be the driver of the truck. The truck was owned by Krishan Kumar Sharma. The driver contested the claim petitions. He took up two pleas. His first plea was that in fact he was not the driver of the truck on the day when the accident occurred. According to him, he had already left the job of respondent No. 2 and had joined service at Kumarsain or at Shimla. He also simultaneously took up the plea that he had been instructed by the owner not to ply the vehicle till all documentation was completed. Respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC316
Deepak Gupta, J.1. The present appeal and cross objections are directed against the judgement and decree dated 4.10.2002 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Suit No. 14 of 1996 titled Navendra Singh Katoch v. Vijay Devi and Anr..2. Maharaja Ranvijay Singh S/o late Bir Bikram Singh was the original owner of the property in dispute. He expired on 4.7.1955 leaving behind a widow Smt. Kalindi Devi and two daughters Smt. Maya Devi (defendant No. 2) and Smt. Swaroop Kumari. The plaintiff Navendra Singh is the son of defendant No. 2. Smt. Kalindi Devi died on 21.2.1973 while her daughter Smt. Swaroop Kumari died issueless on 25.2.1990. The plaintiff filed the suit in the High Court claiming that Maharaja Ranvijay Singh had executed a Will dated 21.2.1949. As per this Will he had given certain rights in his estate to his widow, which rights were to devolve upon his two daughters, Smt. Maya Devi and Smt. Swaroop Kumari, after the death of his widow. According to the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)ShimLC401
Kuldip Singh, J.1.The appellants in this appeal have assailed judgment, decree dated 29.8.1997 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 11/92, reversing judgment, decree dated 26.12.1991 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Karsog in Civil Suit No. 68 of 1988. (SNR) 116 of 1991 (KSG).2. The facts, in brief, are that respondents had filed a suit for declaration and injunction that they are owners in possession of land comprised in khewat No. 102, khatouni No. 119, khasra No. 195, Muhal Baroti/70, measuring 4-12-16 bighas, Tehsil Sundernagar which they had purchased from Dlumbi Devi vide registered sale deed dated 30.12.1980 along with land comprised in khewat No. 103, khatouni No. 120, khasra No. 193, situated in the same village which they had purchased from Sunder through registered sale deed dated 14.1.1981. The further case of the respondents is that they are owners in possession of the suit land but Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sundernagar had issued a show c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC57
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the IPC against the judgment, dated 2.4.2005, of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Una, vide which the appellant was held guilty and convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. There is no mention of the period for which the appellant was to remain in custody in case of default of payment of fine. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 5.4.2004, Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of the complainant Sohan Lal, had gone to bring grass from Swan Bela alongwith Sharda and Monika (PW-5), nieces of Sohan Lal. At about 11.00 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? a.m. Sharda and Monika came back and told the complainant Sohan Lal to collect the grass of his mother, which she was carrying on her head, since the load was very heavy. Thereafter, PW-1 Sohan La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3271
Surinder Singh, J.1. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. The period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation of the trial was ordered to be set off.2. Precisely, the appellant was put on trial on the allegations that the prosecutrix aged about 16 years was engaged with one Budhi Singh. Her marriage was fixed for 23-4-1998, but on 18-4-1998, the appellant started persuading her to marry him, on the assurance to keep her well with great comforts and offered 10 tolas of gold ornaments, thus allured and compelled her not to marry Budhi Singh. It was also alleged that the appellant induced and took her away from her parental house during the intervening night of 18th/19th April, 1998 to his house and committed sexual intercourse on the assu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC47
Sanjay Karol, J.1. Original Application being OA No. 5/96 was filed before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal at Shimla, inter alia, praying for following reliefs:It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that:(i) the impugned dismissal order dated 15.6.1995 may kindly be quashed and set aside. After quashing the impugned order, the respondent be directed to work out and pay the terminal benefits after his retirement;(ii) that an appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued/passed and justice be done;(iii) that record of this case may also kindly be summoned and perused at the time of hearing of this writ petition.The Original Application was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as CWP (T) No. 2953 of 2008.2. The facts relevant for determination of the present petition are as under:The petitioner was employed temporarily with H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board (h...
Tag this Judgment!