Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: himachal pradesh Page 8 of about 4,413 results (0.142 seconds)

Oct 19 2012 (HC)

Bhadri and Others Vs. Smt. Suma Devi and Others

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment, decree dated 24.4.2001 passed by learned District Judge. Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 34 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?yes of 1997 affirming judgment, decree dated 25.2.1997 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi in Civil Suit No. 91/90 (187/92). 2. Smt. Narvada daughter of Ghungar, mother of respondents had filed a suit for declaration and joint possession against appellants and one Hima that Will dated 28.1.1988 of late Ghungar in favour of appellants No. 1 and 2 is wrong, illegal and void. The further pleaded case was that suit land measuring 71-15-13 bighas in Mauza Panyali/146 Illaqua Bagra was recorded in the joint ownership and possession of Ghungar deceased and Hima. Smt. Narvada and appellant No.3 are the daughters, appellant No.1 is widow and appellant No.2 is son of deceased Ghungar and is entitled to inherit his estate. 3. Ghungar father of Smt. Narvada was an old man an...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 2012 (HC)

Chander Mohan Negi and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Se ...

Court : Himachal Pradesh

1. Petitioners have undertaken Junior Basic Teacher training from Government DIETs in the academic Session 2008- 2010. Case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that the respondent-State has appointed Primary Assistant Teachers against the post(s) of JBTs. According to the petitioners, the persons, who were appointed as Primary Assistant Teachers, even do not possess the minimum essential qualification of JBT. According to the petitioners, there are about 1461 candidates, who have undertaken JBT training from DIETs and 800 candidates have undertaken their JBT training from private institutions affiliated to the Himachal Pradesh Board of Education. 2. Case of the respondent-State is that the Primary Assistant Teachers were appointed, since the eligible/qualified candidates were not ready and willing to serve in tribal/hard areas. Further case of the respondent-State is that the Primary Assistant Teachers are serving for the last 8-9 years and if they are disengaged, it would result in ...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 2012 (HC)

Sohan Lal Vs. AmIn Chand and Others

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.02.2002, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1999. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for the sake of convenience), had filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent/proforma respondent/defendants (hereinafter referred Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. to as the defendants for the sake of convenience). The suit was originally filed against Shri Brij Lal, father of defendant No. 1, now represented by his legal representatives, Shri Amin Chand and Shri Tulsi Ram, who were impleaded as proforma defendants. According to the plaintiff, the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 85, 113, 115 and 120, measuring 0-05-83 hectares, situated in village Luharda was recorded in t...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2012 (HC)

State Bank of Patiala, Through Its General Manager and Others Vs. Sham ...

Court : Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Sharma, J. 1. The present letters patent appeal arises out of judgment dated 22.08.2007, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this court in CWP No. 517 of 1999, allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 against the appellants and proforma respondent No.2 for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- (i) That the impugned orders Annexures PB, PO, PQ, PS and PT may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties at the same place and at the same post on which he was performing his duties prior to the issue of impugned order Annexure PQ. (ii) In the alternative, respondents may be directed to hold denovo enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law. 2. The operative part of the impugned judgment dated 22.08.2007, is as follows:- Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The annexures P-Q, dated 17.3.1999 and P-T, dated 3.6.1999 are quashed and set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2012 (HC)

Madan Lal Sharma Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh Through Its Secreta ...

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. By means of this writ petition filed in the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and on its abolition transferred to this Court, following reliefs have been claimed:- (i) That the respondent be directed to take over the services of the applicant, (ii) That the respondent be directed to pay to the applicant all the consequential benefits, such as pay etc., (iii) That the respondent be directed to pay the interest of 18% p.a. 2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher after his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange in Indira Gandhi Memorial Middle School Amlehar, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, a privately managed School on 6.6.1985. He continued to discharge his duties as such in the School till 1990 when on taking over the School by the State Government, his services were dispensed with. At the time of taking over the school, the applicant as well as other teachers of the school were assured ve...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 2012 (HC)

M/S. Roshan Lal, Government Contractor Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh T ...

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Rajiv Sharma, J. Respondent-State invited proposals from private investors for setting up Small Hydro Electric Projects upto 5 MW capacity for 35 identified sites. The last date of receipt of proposals was 31.12.2010. However, the same was extended upto 20.1.2011. Petitioner submitted proposal on 20.1.2011 for Machhad-II (2 MW) project. Respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner on 5.5.2012 for removing deficiencies, more particularly, with regard to computation of net worth. The last date for removal of deficiency was 26.5.2012. However, the same was extended upto 22.6.2012. Petitioner claimed that he removed the deficiencies and submitted the proposal alongwith Annexure P-5 on 22.6.2012. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that though he has supplied the documents on 22.6.2012, but his proposal has been rejected on 25.6.2012. 2. Mr. D.N. Sharma has vehemently argued that the action of the respondents of rejecting the proposal of the petitioner on 25.6.2012 is illegal, arbi...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 2012 (HC)

Mehar Singh Vs. H.P. Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing D ...

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Rajiv Sharma, J. Oral: 1. Petitioner was appointed as Conductor on regular basis on 25.3.1977. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 2010. He was further promoted to the post of Inspector on 16.6.2011. 2. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that his date of birth was 20.4.1955 and not 20.4.1954, as recorded in the service record. He came to know that his date of birth has been recorded as 20.4.1954 when the seniority list was issued on 25.3.2011. Thereafter, he made representation on 3.6.2011. The representation was not decided by the respondentcorporation. He filed CWP No. 1804/2012 in this Court. The same was decided on 23.4.2012. Respondent No.2 was directed to decide the representation. The same was decided on 28.4.2012. 3. Petitioner has placed reliance upon Annexure P-1 whereby his date of birth has been shown as 20.4.1955. It is evident from the service record placed on record that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 20.4.1954. It cannot ...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2012 (HC)

Hans Raj Vs. Sharwan Kumar and Another

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2010 rendered by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 17-G/XIII/2009 and cross-objections No. 39-G/XIII/2009. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the appellant-defendant Hans Raj and Babu Ram in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.II, Dehra. According to the plaintiff, suit land comprising Khata No. 237, Khatauni No. 352, Khasra Nos. 1251 and 1264, kita 2, area 0-32-30 hectares, as per Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 of Muhal Kado, Mauza Gangot, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. was recorded in the joint ownership and possession of the parties. Defendants are bent upon to occupy the suit land without the consent of plaintiff. They ...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2012 (HC)

Rajender Kumar Son of Sh. Hitender Kumar Vs. State of Hp Through Secre ...

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral) This petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 for releasing truck No. HP-65-6363 in favour of the petitioner. 2. It has been stated that petitioner is a registered owner of truck No. HP-65-6363 (for short Rs.truck unless context is otherwise). On 16.8.2010, petitioner sent the truck alongwith its driver by loading government supply of 260 bags of cement from Dhanotu, District Mandi to Executive Engineer, IPH Division Kaza. 3. The petitioner came to know later on that truck has been impounded by the police in connection with FIR No. 17 dated 23.8.2010, registered at Police Station, Kaza, under sections 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act, sections 379, 465, 120-B IPC and section 7B(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent No. 3 after impounding the truck alongwith goods handed over the truck to respondent No. 2 by taking it to be a case involving offence under th...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 2012 (HC)

Darshan Singh Vs. Maya Ram

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.05.2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 2-N/13 of 2002. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for the sake of convenience) has filed a suit for specific performance and injunction against the respondent defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant for the sake of convenience). According to the plaint, the defendant owned land comprised in Khasra No. 743/2/134, measuring 4 biswas, situated in Mauza Devi Nagar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. alongwith an old dilapidated house. On 15.10.1999, the defendant executed an agreement for sale of the land alongwith the house for a consideration of Rs.1,65,000/-. The document was executed in the presence of witnesses. The defendant received a sum of Rs.25,000/- as ea...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //