Court : Himachal Pradesh
RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 3.5.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority (II), Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 10-S/13 (b) of 05/03. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as ‘landlord’ for convenience sake) is the owner of shop No.1, Lahauri Market, building No. 142-145/1, Lahauri Market, Lower Bazar, Shimla. He purchased this shop in the year 1980 by way of sale deed on 21.11.1990 Ex.PW-8/A. Petitioner-tenant, Arun Kumar, and proforma respondent-tenant, Manohar Lal were inducted as tenants in the shop in the year 1971. Rent deed was entered between the landlord and tenants on 17.11.1971 vide Ex.PW-8/B. The shop at that time was owned by Faquir Chand. The eviction of the tenants was sought on the following grounds: i) It is alleged that the tenants sublet the premises to M/s Vijay Crockery and Tent House and the tenants have parted with the possession. The possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
DEV DARSHAN SUD, J. 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein challenging the order dated 4.3.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein claiming that he was a Juvenile on the date when he committed the offence and the case is not triable by the Court, but by the Board under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, (hereinafrer referred to as the `Act’). 2. The petitioner is being tried for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC which was registered against him vide FIR No.107/2010, dated 8.5.2010 in Police Station, Sadar, Shimla. On an application having been made under Section 49 of the Act, it has been stated that the accused was born on 17.7.1994 in Tihri Gharwal in Uttrakhand. The father of the accused is a Nepali migrant labourer. In these circumstances, the petitioner was never admitted in any School in India nor is there any documentary ev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
RAJIV SHARMA, J. OMP No.566 of 2010 1. The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for the following reliefs:- “that the suit may kindly be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants jointly and severally by passing a decree of declaration that the reconstituted partnership deeds dated 9.2.2007, 10.9.2007. 15.12.2007 and 17.12.2007 entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are wrong, illegal and are result of fraud played upon the plaintiffs by defendants No.1 and 2 and as such these aforesaid re constituted partnership deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs with further declaration that the plaintiffs are in fact partners of defendant No.3 and with a prayer for decree of possession directing the defendants No.1 and 2 to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the property of defendant No.3 to the plaintiffs free from all encumbrances by declaring the plaintiffs as partners of defendant No.3 with further declaration that pledging of sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by the learned appellate authority (District Judge), Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No.72-S/14 of 2008 dated 18.9.2009. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent/landlord (hereinafter referred to as “the landlord” for convenience sake) filed application under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity sake) before the learned Rent Controller (II), Shimla on 18.1.2003 to the effect that he was tenant in the suit premises. The suit premises were originally owned by Smt. Ravinder Walia. She died on 26.11.1999. He has become owner of the suit premises and is competent to maintain the application for eviction of the petitioners/tenants (hereinafter referred to as “the tenants” for convenience sake). The suit premises were let out earlier to late Shri Surjan Singh and aft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
SANJAY KAROL, J. (Oral) 1. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 13/14.6.1992, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 28.05.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shimla, Camp at Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 14-S/7 of 2001/94 titled as State of H.P. vs. Datu Ram and Ors., accused stand acquitted of the charged offences. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that 10 days prior to 13.6.1992, Ram Parkash (deceased) who at night was coming to his village saw all the accused i.e. Kamaljeet, Balak Ram and Datu Ram breaking the lock of a trunk on the road side. Said trunk was stolen by these persons. When deceased inquired as to what they were doing, he was told that if he disclosed about it to anyone he would face dire consequences. On 13th of June, 1992 at about 11.15 A.M., Sh. Jasbir Singh (PW-6) nephew of Ram Parkash and Conductor of truck No. HIB-549 was coming home from Behal side. He met accused outside the house of accused Datu Ram. Ram Park...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Surinder Singh, J (Oral): 1. Both the above titled appeals are arising from a common judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge Chamba in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2009, on 9.6.2010/ 6.7.2010, for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short ‘the Act’, whereby the appellants hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused persons’, were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each with default clause. 2. Precisely, the prosecution case as emerges from the evidence of the prosecution can be stated thus. On 17.4.2009, PW11 ASI Santosh Kumar alongwith PW1 ASI Jeet Singh and PW3 HC Neeraj Kumar were on patrolling duty in police Gypsy being driven by Constable Sham Lal (PW4). They reached the place known as ‘Lahadu’ around 12.30 p.m., where they laid a Naqa. They spotted two persons coming from the side of f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiff claimed that she was owner in possession of the suit property measuring 6 biswas situate in Phati Dhalpur, Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil and District Kullu and two storeyed house built thereon to the extent of 1/3rd share.The undisputed facts of the case are that this property was owned by Sh.Swaru, father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff used to reside in the house situated over the suit property with her father. Sh.Swaru Ram unfortunately died. Sh.Swaru was survived by his widow Smt.Besru, the plaintiff Soma Devi and her brother and each got 1/3rd share in the property. Smt.Besru expired later on and the plaintiff and her brother remained in the care and custody of Sh.Puran Chand, defendant No.1 who is their uncle. The plaintiff got married sometime in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
V.K. SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1. The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 29.10.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.42 of 2000, State Versus Rushtam Ali and others, whereby the respondents herein, namely, Rushtam Ali, who has been declared as proclaimed offender by order of this Court, Surat Ram and Mani Devi, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the accused' (denoted as A-1, A-2 and A-3, respectively), were tried for the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were ultimately acquitted. 2. It may also be noticed at this stage that the case against juvenile co-accused Daljit was sent for trial to the Children Court, at Una. 3. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution was that deceased Ripu Ram alias Kathu Ram, was married to A-3 Mani Devi. Two children including juvenile co-accused Daljit were born out of the wedlock. However, the relationship betw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
1. In reference to our dated 4.5.2011, Kailash Kumar, petitioner is present before us in the Court along with his elder brother, namely, Kesar Singh Negi. Ms. Harpreet Kaur is produced before this Court by Ramesh Chauhan, Inspector/SHO, and LC Gurmeet Kaur No. 211 Police Station, Nalagarh. The parents of Ms. Harpreet Kaur, namely Sh. Khushinder Singh (father) and Mrs. Amrit Kaur (mother) are also present in the Court. 2. We have heard separately Kailash Kumar, petitioner as well as Ms. Harpreet Kaur separately. We have also heard Kailash Kumar in the presence of his above mentioned brother and Ms. Harpreet Kaur in the presence of her parents. We have also separately heard learned counsel for the parties. We have heard everyone collectively, as indicated above. We have also provided exclusive opportunity both to Kailash Kumar, petitioner as well as Ms.Harpreet Kaur for some time so that they may interact and exchange their views. So far petitioner is concerned, he is still considering M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
1. This petition is directed against order dated 24.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2009 affirming order dated 16.2.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class (I), Una in Complaint case No. 6-1-2005. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner has filed complaint against respondents on the allegations that in April, 2000, the respondent No.1 was posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Una and respondent No.2 as Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station, Una. A false FIR No. 264 of 2000 under Sections 332, 353, 506 IPC was lodged by one Joginder Singh posted as Peon in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Una against the complainant on 29.4.2000. In pursuance of the said false FIR, respondent No.2 held malicious investigation and manipulated the facts and prepared a false Kalandra being case No. 56-4-2000 under Sections 107, 151 Cr.P.C. against the complainant with the purpose to put the complainant in the police ...
Tag this Judgment!