Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-07-2005
Reported in : 2006ACJ2637
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the parents of the deceased, Ganesh Kumar, who died in an accident on 10.3.1992. Deceased was on his bicycle when he was hit by scooter No. CH 01-B 4255. He succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Thereafter a claim petition was filed by appellants for grant of compensation. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the just and equitable compensation payable is only Rs. 29,000, but has awarded Rs. 50,000, i.e., the minimum amount which can be awarded as no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the amount of compensation granted was extremely meagre and the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future earning prospects of the deceased. The appellants submit that the compensation should be awarded in consonance with the judgments of Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar : (2001)IILLJ1559SC and M.S. Grewal v. Deep ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-07-2005
Reported in : AIR2006HP4,2006(1)ARBLR510(HP)
ORDERK.C. Sood, J.1. The order will dispose of OMPs No. 32 and 57 of 2004 in Civil Suit. No. 52 of 2003 and OMPs No. 12 and 56 of 2004 in Civil Suit No. 51 of 2003 as parties in both the suits are same and one of the questions raised is same in both the suits.2. O.M.P. No. 32 of 2004 is filed by the defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring the dispute raised in Civil Suit No. 52 of 2003 to the Arbitration. By OMP No. 57 of 2004 in Civil 3uil No. 52 of 2003 and 58 of 2004 in Civil Suit No. 51 of 2003 under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code, the plaintiffs pray for closing the defence of the defendant for having failed to file the written statement within the time limited under Order 8, Rule1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. OMP No. 12 of 2004 (Civil Suit No. 51 of 2003) is filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint.3. Plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 52 of 2003 is M/s. Shobit Construction and another and in Civil Suit No. 51 of 2003 is Shobit Fab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-09-2005
Reported in : 2006(1)ShimLC4
K.C. Sood, J.1. The question raised in this petition is whether the respondent No. 1 State of Himachal Pradesh is competent to levy sales tax on the royalty payable by the Petitioner, a lessee, for the extraction of the mineral, i.e., lime stone in this case under the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act2. In order to appreciate the controversy, relevant facts may be noticed:3. Petitioner Cement Corporation of India is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and is a registered dealer under the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner company manufactures cement and for that purpose, use lime stone as raw material in large quantities. The petitioner took a lease of about 794 Hects. land in village Manal and other adjoining areas under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Under the mining lease, the petitioner is to pay royalty to the respo...
Tag this Judgment!