Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-22-2004
Reported in : (2005)IILLJ1054HP
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. This writ petition is taken up at the joint request of learned counsel for the parties and also keeping in view the limited controversy involved in it.2. Petitioner has challenged order dated February 24, 2003, Annexure P-1, passed by respondent No. 2. By means of impugned order, reference of dispute between the petitioner and Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Division Shillai, District Sirmaur, has been declined on the ground that the dispute was raised after 12 years without giving any proper justification of delay.3. Facts in this case are by and large admitted. These are as under:Petitioner was working as a daily-rated workman since 1984. According to him, his 10 services were terminated in the year 1990, without following the principles of either natural justice or the Industrial Disputes Act. He therefore, right from beginning was approaching the office of PWD at Shillai for his re-engagement, but despite assurance that he will be re-engaged, nothing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-10-2004
Reported in : [2005]57SCL225(HP)
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. This petition under Sections 391 to 394 read with Section 81 (1 A) and Sections 100 to 103 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been filed by Gontermann-Piepers (India) Limited with its registered office at Bharatgarh Road, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to Ist petitioner-Company; and G.P.I. Textiles Limited with its registered office at Bharatgarh Road, Nalagarh, District Solan (hereinafter referred to 2nd petitioner-company) praying for the sanction of the modified Scheme of Arrangement filed with the petition as Exhibit-'A' to be binding with effect from the 1st day of January, 2003 on both secured and unsecured creditors.2. Ist and 2nd petitioners-Companies had earlier filed Company Petition No. 12 of 2003 in this Court under section 391(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 praying for convening the meeting of the shareholders of both Companies for consideration and approval of the Scheme of Arrangement between Ist petitioner-Company...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-24-2004
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2512
M.R. Verma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated (sic) 9-2004 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer (Additional Sessions Judge), East Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has been convicted under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three-and-a-half years and fine Rs. 3,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for six months.2. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that in the first half of the year 2000 he was posted as a teacher in Government Primary School, Takhnahar. PW-3, then aged about 12 years, was a student of IV Class in the said school. In the month of May, 2000, it was noticed by Durgi Devi (PW-11) mother of PW-3 that PW-3 was reluctant to go to school, therefore, on 12-5-2000 she enquired from PW-3 as to why she was reluctant to go to school whereas earlier she had been going to school happily. On s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-27-2004
Reported in : I(2005)ACC788,2005ACJ857
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. F.A.O. No. 267 of 1993 was an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) wherein the appellant insurer had challenged the correctness of the judgment and award dated 5.7.1993 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Kangra at Dharamshala in M.A.C.T. Case No. 45 of 1991. Based on the grounds taken in the said appeal, appellant insurer had prayed for setting aside of the aforesaid award. Vide judgment dated 25.5.2004 this court dismissed the aforesaid appeal.2. In the aforesaid appeal, the claimant Lata filed the cross-objections and sought the relief of enhancement of the compensation amount inasmuch as apparently the claimant-cross-objector was not satisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal in the aforesaid claim petition and feeling aggrieved of the awarding of lesser amount than had been prayed for, or was expected, she sought the relief of enhancement of the compensation amount in the aforesaid cross-objecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-20-2004
Reported in : 2005CriLJ779
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. This appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh is directed against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla dated 10-3-2004 in Sessions Trial No. 6-S/7 of 2003/2001, acquitting the respondents herein of the charges framed against them under Sections 376 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.)2. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under :PW-14 prosecutrix (name with held by us) is the daughter of Devinder Kumar resident of village Goloo, Tehsil and District, Shimla. During the relevant time, she was studying in 7th class and was above thirteen years of age in the year 1999. She was staying in the house of her maternal uncle PW-7 Binder Kumar at village Badya, Police Station, Dhalli, Shimla in the year 1999. The case of the prosecution was that on 3-1-1999 at about 5 p.m. PW-7 asked the prosecutrix to drive back the cattle from nearby fields. When the prosecutrix reached a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-03-2004
Reported in : 2005CriLJ1136
K.C. Sood, J.1. This State appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Special Judge, Chamba dated February 21, 2003.2. It appears, respondent Sukhdev Singh, hereinafter referred to as 'the accused', was tried by the learned Special Judge, Chamba under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) and was acquitted by the impugned judgment.Prosecution case :3. Accused Sukhdev Singh was posted as Block Development Officer, Mehla in the District of Chamba in the year 1997. Chain Lal Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Gagla was awarded two works by the Block Development Officer, Mehla, i.e. :(a) Construction of Government Primary School, Gagla and(b) Construction of School at Kuran, in Gram Panchayat, Gagla.Complainant executed both the works but he was not released final payment(s) of the two works. Rupees 14,000/- were due in respect of the work of construction of School building and rupees 20,400/- in respect of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-09-2004
Reported in : II(2004)DMC683
R.L. Khurana, J. 1. The appellant, Dr. Rajiv Jassi, hereinafter referred to as the accused, stands convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, in Sessions Trial No. 25-K/7 of 2000 vide judgment dated 3.12.2001 for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, may be thus stated. The deceased Dr. Suman Lata, daughter of PW 9 Ram Kishan, was married to the accused on 25.4.1998. The deceased at the relevant time was posted as a Dental Surgeon at Civil Hospital, Chail in District Solan, while the accused was posted as a Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre, Gharuan in District Ropar (Punjab). 3. The relationship between the deceased and the accused became estranged immediately after marriage due to the demands for dowry being made b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-23-2004
Reported in : III(2004)ACC775,2005ACJ962
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. Both these appeals have arisen out of order dated 7.7.2003, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (SDM), Paonta Sahib in Case No. 14 of 1999 titled as Jai Singh v. Satnam Singh. As such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5-claimants filed proceedings under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against Satnam Singh, owner of the truck No. HR 11-2209, Sohan Lal its driver and one Tapender Singh. F.A.O. No. 445 of 2003 is by Tapender Singh, whereas F.A.O. No. 6 of 2004 is by (owner and driver of the truck. Tapender Singh is being referred to hereinafter as 'the appellant' whereas the driver and owner are being jointly referred to as 'the appellants', hereinafter.3. The case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was that the deceased was engaged as a labourer by Tapender Singh who was constructing his house on a daily wage of Rs. 60. Deceased while working as a laboure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-23-2004
Reported in : III(2004)ACC307,III(2005)ACC360,2005ACJ1096
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. Since the common question of law is involved for adjudication in these two appeals, both are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Both the appeals have been filed by the insurance companies appellants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('1988 Act', for short) against the awards passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals awarding compensation in favour of the claimants-respondents and against the appellants insurance companies. Whereas in F.A.O. (MVA) No. 275 of 1993 award dated 22.7.1993 passed in M.A.C. Case No. 4-S/2 of 1990 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimla, is under challenge, in F.A.O. (MVA) No. 156 of 1993, award dated 14.1.1999 passed in M.A.C.T. No. 91-S/2 of 1993 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla, is under challenge.3. In both the cases the deceased were travelling in trucks and in both the cases they, on the own showing of the claimants-respondents, were travelling in the trucks as owners of the goods being carr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-02-2004
Reported in : 2006ACJ234
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. The learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing of this appeal urged that admitting all the facts as set out in the claim petition below to be correct, still the impugned award against his client cannot be sustained in any circumstance whatsoever.2. Vehicle bearing registration No. HIB 1947 being insured with the appellant insurance company under a valid insurance policy, is admitted. It met with an accident on 26.4.2000. Jagat Ram was its driver. Deceased Subhash Chand was the husband of respondent No. 1, father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and son of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively, is also another fact on which learned counsel for the parties were not at variance.3. He was travelling in the ill-fated truck at the time when it met with accident on 26.4.2000. As a result of this accident he died. A claim application demanding compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 was filed against the present appellant, i.e., insurance company; Gopal Chand, i.e., owner of...
Tag this Judgment!