Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ShimLC218
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 14.6.2007 passed in CWP No. 628 of 2002 whereby he has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was a Member of the Higher Judicial Service. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her and a memorandum under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) was issued to her on 4.11.1996. The substance of the imputation of misconduct was enclosed with the memorandum. Three Articles of Charges were levelled against her. It is not necessary to refer to the Article of Charges since that dispute stands already decided. The petitioner was put under suspension on 4.4.1997. The Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 27th March, 1997 held that all the three Articles of Charges stand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (2009)ILLJ105HP,2008(2)ShimLC240
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Counsel for Himachal Road Transport Corporation (in short 'HRTC Corporation').2. In the present writ petition, the order dated 28.2.2002 passed by the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla (in short 'learned Tribunal') in OA No. 119/95 has been challenged, whereby, the O.A. preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25.2.1993 removing him from the service of Corporation and further prayer directing to re-engage him with consequential benefits, has been denied.3. It appears that the petitioner was initially deployed as daily wager by the respondent corporation in the year 1980. Thereafter his services were regularized in the year 1982. The departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner wherein he was served with two charge-sheets dated 20.11.1991 and 21.3.1992. The charges indicated therein were as follows:(i) Alleged attempt to defraud the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ShimLC350
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 29-S/13 of 1996 dated 9.6.1997.2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the Second Appeal are that the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs' for convenience sake) had filed a suit in the Court of learned Senior Sub-Judge, Solan on 24.2.1990 for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that they had been coming in possession as owners of the suit land since the time of their ancestors and revenue entries to the contrary showing the land as Shamlat Deh was wrong, illegal and not affect their right, title or interest and subsequent mutation qua the suit land measuring 125 Bighas 19 Biswas situated in village Chhrol, Tehsil Kandaghat, now Tehsil Kasauli, in favour of Nagar Panchayat and in possession of Makbuja Bashindgaan Deh is wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction. They also as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (2008)IIILLJ795HP,2008(2)ShimLC324
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the members of the petitioners' union were engaged by respondent No. 3 since 1983-84 onwards. Respondent No. 3 had moved an application to respondent No. 1 seeking permission of closure of the factory under Sub-section (1) of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity sake) on 4.4.2003. It was specifically mentioned in the application dated 4.4.2003 that number of employees whose services were to be terminated on account of the closure of the unit was 149. The application was rejected on 9.5.2003 whereby the permission was not accorded for the proposed closure of the unit. Respondent No. 3 i.e. management approached the State Government on 15.12.2003 under Section 29(N) of the Act seeking permission for retrenchment of 50 workmen out of 141 workmen with effect from 15.3.2004. The application was decided on 12.12.2004 whereby the State Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4159
Sanjay Karol, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 18th May, 2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamsala, H. P. in S.C./S.T. No. 39-D/VII/06/2/20C7 titled as State of H. P. v. Om Raj convicting the accused for having committed an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo imprisonment of one year.2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 11th August, 2006 Parshotam Lal (PW-1) had taken his animals for grazing from his house at village Duli, post office Kutharna, Tehsil and Police Station, Shahpur District Kangra, H.P. When he reached near the house of the accused, Reena Devi (PW-2) niece of the accused and grand daughter of PW-1 called him into the courtyard of the house. Parshotam Lal sat along side PW-2 and kept his 'Darati' (sickle) (Ext. P-1) besides him. Thereafter the accused came from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (2009)ILLJ389HP
ORDERRajiv Sharma, J.1. Since the common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, the same are being disposed by a common judgment.2. A challenge has been laid by the petitioners to the award dated January 17,2006 passed in reference No. 129/2000 by the Presiding Judge, Himachal Pradesh Labour Court, Shimla.3. The brief facts necessary for the adjudications of these petitions are that the 'Kapra Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union' (CITU), had submitted a Demand Charter to the Manager of the respondent-factory on January 31, 2000 raising as many as 15 demands. The Union had also served a notice on the management of the respondent-factory on June 10, 2000 under Sections 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears that the matter could not be resolved amicably' between the workmen and the management and consequently the State Government has made the following reference to the Labour Court:Whether the demand raised by Kapra Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union (CITU) (Unregister...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ShimLC188
Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 21.11.1995 passed by learned Additional District Judge (1), Dharamshala Camp at Una, in Civil Appeal No. 39/92, RBT No. 206/94 affirming judgment, decree dated 29.2.1992 passed by learned Sub-Judge 1st Class (1), Una in case No. 84 of 1987.2. The facts, in brief, are that Faquir Chand, original plaintiff, filed a suit against Daulat Ram, Sukh Dev, Ram Sarup and Smt. Vidya Devi for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from removing the pump set or interfering in any manner in the right of the plaintiff to irrigate his land measuring 25 kanals 16 marlas from well and pump set situated in land measuring 8 marlas bearing Khasra No. 114R/29 vide Jamabandi 1981-82 village Basal, Tehsil and District Una. Faquir Chand, original plaintiff, has died and his legal representatives have been brought on record.3. The case of the original plaintiff was that he was tenant with possession on 25 kanals 16 ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(3)ShimLC91
Surjit Singh, J.1. The case has a chequered history. Respondent Bhupesh Kumar was challaned, under Sections 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code, for allegedly murdering Poonam Sharma and making an attempt on the lives of two other persons named Vivek and Raj Kumar.2. It appears that when the case was filed in the Magisterial Court, a question was raised that the respondent was not capable of defending himself owing to un-soundness of mind. The Magistrate, without making inquiry into the question in accordance with the provision of Section 328 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court charged the accused-respondent with the aforesaid offences and examined the witnesses produced by the prosecution. When the respondent was sought to be examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he gave answers (to the questions put by the Court) which were irrelevant. The Sessions Court then made an observation that the respondent appeared...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3210
Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been directed against judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 28-3-2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu in Sessions Trial No. 67-05, vide which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the commission of offence, under Section 376 IPC, in default of payment of fine, the appellant is to undergo further imprisonment for three months. The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 452 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo imprisonment for two months. The appellant has also been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the commission of offence, under Section 506 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for one month. All the sent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : [2008]142CompCas915(HP)
ORDERDeepak Gupta, J.1. The following two interesting questions of law arise for decision in the aforementioned appeal:1. Whether the company judge exercising powers under Section 20(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, is bound by the recommendations/opinion of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('the BIFR') under Section 20(1) of the SICA recommending winding up of the company?2. What is the procedure to be followed by the company judge while proceeding with the winding up of the sick industrial company, under Section 20(2) of the SICA?2. It is not necessary to give the detailed facts of the case. The appellant is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its head office at village Missarwala, post office Majra, tehsil Paonta Sahib, district Sirmour. By the year 1990, the company had lost all its equity and could not pay the instalments of loans raised from the financial institutions. The plant of the company w...
Tag this Judgment!