Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-24-2009
Reported in : AIR2009HP73
ORDERSanjay Karol, J.1. Plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation on account of failure of sterilization operation allegedly due to medical negligence on the part of the doctors of the State stands dismissed. The said judgment and decree dated 16th July, 2002 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 8 of 1999 titled as Smt. Bimla Dei v. State of H. P. and Ors. has been assailed by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff filed a suit under Order 33 Rule 1, C. P. C. claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- alleging that:(i) She is resident of village Rajpura and married to Sh. Babu Ram. After giving birth to two children she and her husband decided to undergo sterilization operation;(ii) At the instance of the Chief Medical Officer she got herself operated for tubectomy on 7th January, 1985 in Primary Health Centre, Markand. The operation was carried out by Dr. Inder Singh; Block Medical Officer, Markand. Certificate of operation bearing No. 5666 was iss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-19-2009
Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC10
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. The petitioner was removed from service on 16.8.1982. He preferred an appeal against the penalty of removal. The Chairman of the respondent-Corporation on 31.8.1982 on reconsideration of the appeal modified the order and the penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was imposed on 12.7.1984. He joined his duties on 16.7.1984. There was second case also against him. In this case also penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed on 5.7.1985. The respondents No. 3 to 6 were promoted to the post of superintendents Grade II vide communication dated 16.7.1991. The petitioner was not considered for promotion on the basis of Annexures-RA and RB respectively. The case of the respondents is that the case of the petitioner could not be considered for promotion on ad hoc basis due to imposition of penalties vide Annexures-RA and RB. The petitioner was not considered fit for his promotion owing to the penalties which remained oper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-10-2009
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
Decided on : Sep-03-2009
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
Decided on : Oct-07-2009
Deepak Gupta, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner Reliance Infrastructure Limited (here-in-after referred to as RIL) has prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the decision taken by the State of Himachal Pradesh on 25.11.2008 in respect of the two hydro-electric projects, namely, Jangi Thopan and Thopan Powari of 480 MW each alongwith the letter of award in favour of respondent No. 4 (M/s Brakel Corporation NV (here-in-after referred to as Brakel). The petitioner has also prayed that respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5 M/s Brakel Kinnaur Power Limited (here-in-after referred to as M/s Brakel Kinnaur) be restrained from entering into any other agreement on the basis of the decision dated 25.11.2008. The petitioner also prayed that the aforesaid hydro-electric projects be awarded to them.The Factual Matrix:2. The State of Himachal Pradesh issued an advertisement in October, 2005, which was a global invitation inviting bids for implementation of Hydr...
Tag this Judgment!