Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1988CriLJ438
R.S. Thakur, J.1. This order will dispose of two Contempt Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 7 and 8 of 1985, whereby the Court has suo motu initiated proceedings in criminal contempt against the State of Himachal Pradesh and its employees mostly belonging to the Police and posted at Dharmsala. Karam Singh respondent No. 2 and Himmat Ram respondent No. 3 in Contempt Petition (Cr.) No. 7 of 1985 and Bai Chand and Parveen Kumar, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, in Contempt Petition (Cr.) No. 8 of 1985 at the relevant time were posted as constables at Dharamsala, whereas R. S. Pathania and Jaswant Monga, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 respectively ,were posted as Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police respectively in District Kangra at Dharmsala. M. L. Nahar, respondent No. 6 was General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner Kangra at Dharmsala later on re-designated as Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra.2. The proceedings in Contempt Petition (Cr.) No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
R.S. Pathak, C.J. 1. The respondent filed a suit against the State for a declaration that he was owner of the property specified in the plaint. The suit was decreed, and the Stale has filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal an order was made on December 14, 1970 directing sale of the mature forest trees situated in the property, and deposit of the sale proceeds in the State Bank of India, Simla. It appears that some trees were sold and the sale proceeds were paid over to the Registrar of this Court for depositing in the Bank. The respondent then applied for permission to withdraw Rs. 60,000/- out of the said amount and on May 10, 1974 this Court granted the prayer subject to the respondent furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar for re-payment of that amount in case the appeal was allowed. The respondent filed a surety bond before the Registrar, and an objection has been taken by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State that the surety bond requir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, in order to maintain the clarity, the facts of CWP No. 157/2010 are being taken into consideration. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of these petitions are that the name of the petitioner was registered in the First Register of Pharmacists, under section 31 (a) (b), (c), (d) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity sake) on 28.8.1969. Thereafter the same was renewed for life time; in the year 1983-84, vide Annexure P-2. Respondent No.3 has taken a decision on 26.5.2009 to carry out renewal after every five years and the same was to be carried lotwise and periodically. Renewal fee for the same is to be ` 500/- up to six months and with late fee of ` 50/- per month up to six months from the date of renewal. Thereafter, public notice was issued by re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
ORDERT.R. Handa, J.1. The District and Sessions Judge, Selan and Sirmur districts conducted the monthly inspection of the Model Central Jail, Nahan on 5-4-1983. He submitted a copy of his inspection note to this Court for its perusal and record. Para No. 5 of the inspection note which is relevant for the purposes of the present proceedings reads :-5. Mathu Ram alias Harbans Singh & Sita Ram:Both the convicts are placed under fetters. The Superintendent of Jail to explain under what circumstances the convicts have been placed under fetters. Both complain of discrimination by stating that Ishwari Prasad convict, who also ran away, has not been placed under fetters, The Assistant Superintendent of Jail has been directed to open the fetters of S/Shri Mathu Ram and Sita Ram convicts immediately with the direction to report compliance. The Assistant Superintendent of Jail, it may be observed, obeyed the order of the District & Sessions Judge forthwith and in his very presence.2. It appears t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1985CriLJ397
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. Rule. To be heard today.2. The learned Advocate-General waives service of the Rule on behalf of the respondents.3. The petitioner is a prisoner undergoing sentence of imprisonment in the Model Central Jail at Nahan. It appears that he was brought and lodged in the Sub-Jail, Kaithu, at Shimla for undergoing medical treatment at the Snowdon Hospital, Shimla, sometime in the month of April 1984. On April 11, 1984 the custody of the petitioner was handed over to two police constables named Thina Ram and Hem Raj at about 10 A.M. for taking him to the Snowdon Hospital for medical check-up. Those two constables handcuffed the petitioner while taking him to the Hospital and even while he was medically examined by Dr. M.L. Sharma, Associate Professor, Department of E.N.T., Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Shimla, he was in handcuffs. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that when he was produced before Dr. M.L. Sharma, he directed that the handcuffs be removed. However...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1985CriLJ1202
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. Rule. To be heard today.2. The learned Advocate General waives service of the Rule on behalf of the respondents,3. The petitioner is a convict undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment. He is incarcerated in the Model Central Jail, Nahan. According to the official version, he has undergone actual imprisonment for a period of 8 years, 7 months and 6 days and total imprisonment, inclusive of remission, for a period of 13 years. 9 months and 16 days as on June 20, 1984. The petitioner has, inter alia, complained herein regarding two matters : first, non-consideration of his case for premature release in light of the policy of the State Government on the subject and, secondly, non-consideration of his case for being released on parole. So far as the first complaint is concerned, pursuant to an order made in a Writ Petition instituted earlier by the petitioner, the State Government is required to consider the. case for the premature release of the petitioner in the mon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1995HP96
ORDERKamlesh Sharma, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 241 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter called the Act) for grant of letters of administration, with the Will annexed for the administration of the estate of Ms. Enid Alice Lisbey deceased, for the use and benefit of the absent executor, Lt. Col. L. H. M. Gregory, the sole-executor so named by late Ms. Lisbey as per her last Will and testament dated 22-6-1978. The Executor of the Will Lt. Col. Gregory is stated to be presently residing in London, as such, his general attorney Kamaljit Singh Grewal (hereinafter called the petitioner) has filed this petition for the use and benefit of his principal Lt. Col. Gregory.2. It is stated in the petition that late Ms. Enid Alice Lisbey widow of late Mr. Norman Douglas Lisbey was resident of Dunloe Estate, near Deepak Project, Shimla and she died on 17-10-1980 at Shimla Sanitorium and Hospital, Chaura Maidan, Shimla. During her life time and at the time of death she was an Anglic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 96 of the CPC read with Section 20 of the H.P. Courts Act, 1976 against the judgment and decree of the court of learned District Judge, Shimla, dated 1.4.1998, vide which the learned trial court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 HPSEB and passed a money decree for recovery of Rs. 2,23,532/- with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum against the appellant.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 (hereinafter also referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,23,532/- as against the appellant, who was impleaded as defendant while the present respondent No. 2 was impleaded as profroma defendant. It was alleged by the plaintiff Board that defendant No. 2 representing to be manufacturers of power and distribution transformers offered to supply to the plaintiff the transformers at various stations. The plaintiff on 13.9.1989 placed purchase order wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Sanjay Karol, J. This is the complainants appeal filed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, assailing the judgment dated 12.7.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala in Cr.R.B.T. Case No. 51-II/04/02, titled as Parkash Chand versus Satish Sarotri and another. In terms of the said judgment, both the accused, the respondents herein stands acquitted. 2. On 13.6.2002 the present appellant Sh. Parkash Chand filed a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, Dharamshala against the private respondents. Allegedly Sh. Satish Salotra (accused No.1) persuaded the complainant and managed to get power of attorney executed in his favour. In terms thereof land owned by the complainant situated in village Sidhpur, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. could be sold. The complainant executed power of attorney (Ext. CW-1/A) with respect to khasra numbers 963, 964, 971, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 992 and 959. Even though sale ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002HP99
ORDERKamlesh Sharma, J. 1. Appellants are the legal representatives of original plaintiff Puran Chand. whereas respondent No. 1 is defendant No. 1 and respondents 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of original defendant No. 2, Smt. Chandoo. In this appeal under Section 100, C. P. C., the appellants have assailed the decree and Judgment dated 8-1-1998 passed by the District Judge, Shimla. whereby their appeal was dismissed and the decree and judgment dated 1-9-1994 passed by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class (2), Shimla. was affirmed. . The Sub-Judge had dismissed the suit of original plaintiff Puran Chand and allowed the counter claim of defendant No. 1 for possession of land in dispute measuring 12 blghas 3 biswas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 24, 26. 50, 57, 63 and 66, situated in MauzaKalyana, Hadbast No. 16, Tehsll and District Shimla. 2. The suit filed by the original plaintiff Puran Chand was for declaration that he was in possession of the land in dispute as charge-holder and he could not ...
Tag this Judgment!