Himachal Pradesh High Court
Downloaded On - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 ... vs Heeralal on 30 July, 2018
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
FAO No.218 of 2018 .
3.07.2018 Present: Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.
Sequel to order dated 15.06.2018, parties have come present in Court.
Mr. Surinder Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent, on instruction, states that there is no possibility of amicable settlement and as such, matter may be decided on merits.
Accordingly, in view of the above, let this matter be listed next week for final hearing, as jointly agreed by learned counsel for the parties.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 3 July, 2018 rd ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:40 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.24 of 2017 .
3.07.2018 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
None for defendants No.1 and 2.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for defendants No. 3 to 6. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, for defendant No.7.
Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, states that matter with regard to issuance of feasibility certificate is pending before the Director Education and as such, he may be given 34 days time to have instructions. He further states that though written statement on behalf of defendant No.3 already stands filed, but he will have instruction whether defendants No.4 to 6 want to file written statement or they want to adopt the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.3.
Accordingly, in view of the above, further one week time is granted to the learned Additional Advocate General, to have instructions in the matter, as stated hereinabove.
Liston 10th July, 2018. Registry to reflect the name of learned Additional Advocate General in the cause list henceforth.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 3 July, 2018 rd ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:40 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.55 of 2017 .
3.07.2018 Present: Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Advocate vice counsel for the plaintiff.
Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Advocate, for the defendants.
Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff prays for and is granted further two weeks' time, as last opportunity, to file replication, failing which right to file the same shall be deemed to have been closed. List thereafter.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 3 July, 2018 rd ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:40 :::HCHP Arb. Case No.41 of 2018 .
3.07.2018 Present: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Dheeraj Vashishat, Advocate, for the respondent.
Arb. Case No.41 of 2018 & OMP No.256 of 2018 Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate, has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the respondent. He prays for and is r to granted two weeks' time to file reply.
List on 17th July, 2018.
OMP No.255 of 2018By way of instant application filed under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, prayer has been made to issue direction to the opposite party to produce the original arbitration agreement dated 23.7.2015 or its certified copy. Reply, if any, be filed on or before the next date of hearing.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 3 July, 2018 rd ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Cr.MP(M) No.772 of 2018 .
3.07.2018 Present: Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal,Deputy Advocate General for the respondent State.
Sequel to order dated 19.6.2018, ASI Subhash Kumar, police Station, Sadar, District Chamba, H.P., has come present alongwith the record. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report, prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency.
Learned Additional Advocate General states that since report of SFSL, Junga is still awaited and as such matter may be adjourned for two weeks. Accordingly, in view of the above, list this matter on 24th July, 2018.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 3 July, 2018 rd ( shankar) certified ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.20 of 2014 .
3.07.2018 Present: Mr. R.K.Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gaurav Gautam, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal,Deputy Advocate General for the defendants.
Mr. S.C.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General states that though defendants witnesses have come present, but since they have not come with the relevant record, their statements may be deferred and he be allowed to move an appropriate application, if required under law. Aforesaid prayer is not opposed and as such,witnesses namely Sh. Satish Kumar, Sh. Chuni Lal, MHC Bhagat Ram, Sh. Jhaneshwar Negi and Sh. Prem Raj Thakur, present in Court are discharged for today.
Accordingly, in view of the above, let this matter be listed for recording the statement of defendant's witnesses, on a date to be fixed by Additional Registrar(Judicial).
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 3 July, 2018 rd ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.43 and 44 of 2016 .
6.07.2018 Present: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate, for the plaintiff(s).
Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for the defendant(s).
OMP Nos. 49 & 111 of 2018 Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel representing the applicant/defendant, states that he shall be filing rejoinder during the course of the day.
Accordingly, in view of the above, list this matter after two weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 6 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Arb. Case No.57 of 2015 6.07.2018 Present: Mr. J.S.Bhogal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh .
Thakur,Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState.
Perusal of the minutes of 8 th meeting held on 15.10.2016 for amicable settlement of pending disputes inter se petitioner and the respondentDepartment, suggest that the Settlement Committee having perused the claims/counter claims of the parties in dispute, held the petitioner entitled to Rs. 79,62,052/ only against the total claim of Rs.80.00 lac as full and final settlement. However, while arriving at aforesaid amount, Committee members unanimously resolved that amicably settled proposal shall be subject to the specific condition that contractor shall make an undertaking in affidavit duly attested by First Class Magistrate to the extent that all the claims pertaining to this work against the agreement in dispute are fully and finally settled and nothing is due from the Executive Engineer, Arki and he shall withdraw all pending cases from Hon'ble High Court, Arbitration Tribunal/or any other statutory authorities against the work in question.
2. Documents placed on record alongwith supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, clearly suggest ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP that he vide communications dated 30.12.2016, 26.11.2016 and .
8.12.2016, categorically informed the Department that amicable settlement arrived inter se parties was with respect to arbitration pending before the learned Arbitrator Sh. Naresh Markanda and he shall file his affidavit qua that matter only.
3. Shockingly, Department despite having received aforesaid communications, proceeded to remit an amount of Rs.
75,64,242/ in the bank account of the petitioner by way RTGS on 24.1.2017, whereafter, an application under sub Section 2(b) of Section 32 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came to be filed on behalf of respondents in this Court, praying therein to dispose of the objections filed by the petitioner in view of the final settlement arrived between the parties. It is not understood that when the petitioner had not furnished affidavit, as mentioned in the proceedings of the meeting held on 15.10.2016, where was the occasion for the Department to remit the aforesaid amount in the bank account of the petitioner.
Let, the EngineerinChief HP,PWD to file his personal affidavit, explaining therein circumstances under which, the aforesaid payment was remitted in the account of the petitioner without having obtained affidavit as per the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP agreed terms. Needful shall be done within a period of one .
week.
List on 17th July, 2018, on which date, Engineerin Chief shall personally remain present in Court.
Authenticated copy.
6 July, 2018
th
r to
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
( shankar)
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP
Civil Suit No.47 of 2015
.
6.07.2018 Present: Mr. A.K. Bansal and Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate,
for the plaintiff.
Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the defendant.
Learned counsel representing the parties state that since no specific instructions are being imparted to them with regard to compromise, if any, arrived inter se parties and as such, matter may be fixed for recording evidence.
Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned counsel representing the plaintiff states that list of witnesses already stands furnished and as such, date may be fixed.
In view of the above, let this matter be listed for recording plaintiff's evidence, on the date, to be fixed by Additional Registrar( judicial).
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 6 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.20 of 2018 .
6.07.2018 Present: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the defendant.
In terms of order dated 1.6.2018, parties have come present in Court, but there is no possibility of amicable settlement. Though, plaintiff is ready and willing to resolve the matter amicably,but it appears that defendant is not interested to do so and as such, this Court has no option, but to decide the matter on merits.
Learned counsel representing the defendant prays for and is granted four weeks time to file written statement.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 6 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP OMP No.427 of 2017 in Arb. Case No.31 of 2004 .
6.07.2018 Present: Mr. M.A.Khan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Naresh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.L.Sood, Senior Advocate,with Mr. Arjun K. Lall, Advocate, for the respondent.
OMP No.427 of 2017 in Arb. Case No.31 of 2004 Mr. Y.P.Sood, Advocate states that he is no more representing the petitioner and prays that he may be permitted to withdraw his Power of Attorney. Ordered accordingly.
Mr. Naresh Sharma, Advocate, has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the petition.
Heard in part. List for continuation on 13.7.2018.
OMP No.315 of 2018By way of instant application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, permission has been sought to place on record certified copies of the record pertaining to SLP (Civil) NO.2885657. Since, the documents intended to be placed on record are being filed/placed in terms of the order passed by this Court, no formal order is required to be passed as such, present petition is disposed of. Documents annexed with the application are ordered to be taken on record.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 6 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Cr.MMO No.113 of 2018 .
6.07.2018 Present: Mr. N.K.Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState List next week, as prayed for by learned counsel representing the petitioner.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 6 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Cr.MMO No.41 of 2018 .
6.07.2018 Present: Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
List on 13th July, 2017, as prayed for by learned counsel representing the petitioner.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 6 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP CMPMO No.406 of 2017 .
6.07.2018 Present: Mr.B.S.Attri, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Ashwani Negi, Advocate vice counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that instant matter is to be argued by Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate, who is not present in Court on account of some personal difficulty and as such, matter may be taken up on some other date.
Accordingly, in view of the above, let this matter be listed on 17th July, 2018.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 6 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.68 of 2000 .
6.07.2018 Present: Nemo for the appellant.
Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate, for the defendant.
Despite repeated calls and pass overs, none has come present on behalf of the appellant. However, in the interest of justice, matter is adjourned.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 6 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.68 of 2000 .
6.07.2018 Present: Nemo for the appellant.
Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate, for the defendant.
Despite repeated calls and pass overs, none has come present on behalf of the appellant. However, in the interest of justice, matter is adjourned.
(Sandeep Sharma)
r Judge
6 July, 2018
th
( shankar)
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP
.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP
Cr. Appeal No.14 of 2017
.
6.07.2018 Present: Mr. N.K.Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divya Raj
Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState List on 10th July, 2018, as prayed for by learned counsel for the appellant.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 6 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Cr.MMO No.178 of 2015 .
6.07.2018 Present: Mr. Yash Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. P.S.Goverdhan, Advocate, for the respondents.
Learned counsel representing the petitioners states that respondent No.2 has attained majority during the pendency of the present appeal and as such, he may be allowed to move appropriate application.
Accordingly, in view of the above, list this matter after two weeks. In the meanwhile, application, as referred hereinabove, may be filed by the petitioner.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 6 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Cr.MMO NO.12 of 2015 .
6.07.2018 Present: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals,with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentsState.
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Bhatia, Advocate, for respondent No.3. r Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 6 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP RSA Nos.344 of 2005 and 354 of 2005 .
6.07.2018 Present: Mr. Anupinder Rohal, Advocate, for the appellant in RSA No.344 of 2005 and for respondent No.1 in RSA No.354 of 2005.
Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate,for respondents No.1 and 3 in RSA No.344 of 2005 and for the appellant in RSA No.354 of 2005.
Since, court time is over, list this matter on 9th July, 2018.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 6 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Cr.MMO No.326 of 2017 .
6.07.2018 Present: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals,with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentsState.
r to Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of the petitioner and states that now she would be appearing as counsel for the petitioner. She prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file power of attorney. List thereafter.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 6 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Cr. Appeal No.257 of 2017 .
9.07.2018 Present: Mr. Vinay Thakur, Legal Aid Counsel, for the appellant.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals,with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentsState.
On the request of the learned counsel representing the appellant, list this matter after four weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 9 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP RSA No.192 of 2008 .
9.07.2018 Present: Ms. Poonam Gehlot, Advocate vice counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate, for the respondent.
On the request of learned counsel representing the appellant, list this matter after three weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 9 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.24 of 2017 .
10.07.2018 Present: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. N.K.Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Advocate, for defendants No.1 and 2.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General,for defendants No.3 to 6.
Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.7.
Civil Suit No.24 of 2017Learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, states that in view of the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.3, no separate written statement is required to be filed on behalf of defendants No. 4 to 6. His statement is taken on record. Ordered accordingly.
Learned Additional Advocate General states that pursuant to the previous order passed by this Court, steps have already been taken for issuance of feasibility certificate and in this regard, Deputy Director Education is supposed to visit the premises tomorrow, whereafter necessary action shall be taken for issuance of feasibility certificate.
In view of the above, list this matter on 24 th July, 2018.
OMP No.56 of 2018By way of instant application filed underCivil Suit No.24 of 2017 Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP prayer has been made on behalf of applicant/defendant No.7, .
for modification/alternation of order, dated 23.5.2017, passed by this Court, whereby parties have been directed to maintain status quo.
2. Averments contained in the application suggest that applicant/defendant No.7bank has already initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act) on account of default in repayment of loan facility availed by defendants No.1 and 2. It is not in dispute that in the instant suit having been filed by the plaintiff, no challenge has been laid to the action initiated by the applicant/defendant No.7 against defendants No.1 and 2 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Otherwise also, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdish Singh versus Heeralal, (2014)1 SCC 479, has categorically held that Sections 34 and 35 of the SARFAESI Act completely oust the jurisdiction of Civil Court qua the action, if any, under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
3. The plaintiff has not sought any relief against the bank and as such, in view of the averments contained in the application, which have been otherwise not controverted by the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP defendants, this Court deems it fit to modify the order dated .
23.5.2017 to the extent that applicant/defendant No.7bank shall be at liberty to proceed with the action, if any, initiated under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act during the pendency of the present suit.
4. However, it is made clear that applicant/defendant No.7bank before taking final action against the defaulters shall inform this Court.
Accordingly, the present application is disposed of .
Copy dasti.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 10 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Cr.MMO No.442 of 2017 .
10.07.2018 Present: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General,for the respondentState.
Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that he does not intend to file rejoinder and he has no objection in case the matter is decided on the basis of the material available on record.
Accordingly, in view of the above, list this matter next week.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 10 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:41 :::HCHP Cr. Revision No.241 of 2018 .
10.07.2018 Present: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General,for the respondentState.
Issue notice. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and wavies service of notice on behalf of the respondentState.
r List on 6th August, 2018.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 10 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP Civil Suit No. 64 of 2018 .
10.07.2018 Present: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General,for the defendants.
OMP No.326 of 2018Since civil Suit having been filed by the plaintiff stands already registered and notices have been issued to the defendants, returnable for 28.8.2018, application filed under Section 80(2) CPC, seeking therein leave to institute the suit, is rendered infructuous and as such, application is disposed of accordingly.
Civil Suit No.64 of 2018Learned counsel for the plaintiff undertakes to remove the objections, if any, raised by the Registry within two weeks. Such undertaking is accepted and taken on record.
OMP No.327 of 2018Notice. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, wavies notice on behalf of the defendants. He prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply to the application.
By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant that during the pendency of the suit, ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP defendants be restrained from taking consequential action on .
the basis of notices/ demand orders dated 28.4.2016, 21.2.2017, 8.11.2017 and 31.3.2018 issued by the defendants.
Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned counsel representing the plaintiff, on instructions, further states that an amount of Rs. 11,92,730/ stands already deposited in the Registry of this Court.
In view of the above statement of the learned counsel representing the plaintiff, operation and execution of notices/demand orders dated 28.4.2016, 21.2.2017, 8.11.2017 and 31.3.2018, as referred to herein above, shall remain stayed. Since defendants are duly represented, there is no requirement to comply with the Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.
Copy dasti.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 10 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.33 of 2018 .
10.07.2018 Present: Mr. O.C.Sharma and Mr. Ashok Thakur, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Manoj Bagga, Advocate vice counsel for defendants No. 8 to 12 and 16.
Civil Suit No.33 of 2018Mr. O.C. Sharma, learned counsel representing the plaintiffs, prays for and is granted one week's time to take fresh steps for the service of unserved defendants. In the event of taking such steps, Registry to issue notice to the unserved defendants, returnable for 28th August,2018.
OMP No.345 of 2018By way of instant application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prayer has been made for vacating exparte adinterim order passed by this Court.
Learned counsel representing the nonapplicant/ plaintiff prays for and is granted two week time to file reply to the application.
OMP No.24 & 25 of 2018 Reply be positively filed within a period of two weeks.
OMP No. 346 of 2018By way of instant application filed under Sections ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP 148 and 151 CPC, prayer has been made for grant of further .
time to make compliance of order 39 Rule 3 CPC, passed in OMP No.52 of 2018 on 1.5.2018.
Learned counsel representing the nonapplicants/ defendants prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply to the application.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 10 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP Cr. Appeal No.592 of 2017 .
10.07.2018 Present: Mr. K.D.Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate, for the respndent accused.
Respondentaccused is present in Court. However, learned counsel representing the parties, on instruction, of their respective clients, state that after recording of conviction vide judgment ,dated 22nd June, 2018, parties have resolved their dispute amicably inter se them, whereby both the parties have agreed that in case an amount of Rs. 10 lac in lump sum is paid to the complainant, complainant shall have no objection in getting the matter compounded in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act( for short 'Act').
2. Though, Mr. K.D.Sood, learned Senior Counsel representing the complainant, states that he has definite instruction to get the matter compromised, as referred hereinabove, on behalf of the complainant, but this Court solely with a view to ascertain the correctness of the aforesaid joint statement made by learned counsel for the parties, deems it fit to cause presence of complainant, who on oath may state before this Court factum with regard to compromise, if any, arrived inter se parties.
Accordingly, on the joint request of learned counsel ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP for the parties, list this matter on 16th July, 2018, on which .
date, parties shall personally remain present in Court.
Needless to say, authorized representative Sh.
Sudesh Kumar, who had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, shall also remain present in Court on behalf of the complainant.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 10 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP CMP(M) No.837 of 2018 .
10.07.2018 Present: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant.
Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable within a period of three weeks, on taking steps within one week.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 10 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP CMP(M) No.836 of 2018 .
10.07.2018 Present: Mr. Surender K.Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant.
Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable within a period of three weeks, on taking steps within one week.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 10 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.43 of 2018 .
10.07.2018 Present: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sanjeev Mankotia, Advocate, for the defendant.
Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the plaintiff, whereas Mr. Sanjeev Mankotia, Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of the defendant. Though, pleadings are almost complete, learned counsel representing the parties, state that they requires some time to complete their brief and as such, matter may be adjourned for some time.
Accordingly, in view of the above, list this matter after two weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 10 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP Arb. Case No.38 of 2018 .
10.07.2018 Present: Mr. J.S.Bhogal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Parmod Negi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Santoshvir Singh, Advocate vice counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel representing the respondents, prays for and is granted two weeks' time, as last opportunity, to file reply, failing which, right to file the same shall be deemed to have been closed and matter shall be decided on the basis of the material adduced on record. List thereafter.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 10 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP Cr.MP(M) No.643 of 2018 .
11.07.2018 Present: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Satish Sharma,Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anshul Bansal and Mr. Anshul Attri, Advocates, for the respondent CBI.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState.
r Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General states that affidavit of Jail Superintendent, Kanda as well as medical report shall be filed within a period of two days.
List on 20th July, 2018.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 11 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP Cr.MMO No.292 of 2018 .
11.07.2018 Present: Mr. Balram Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState. Cr.MMO No.292 of 2018 7 Cr.MP No.916 of 2018 Issue notice. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and wavies service of notice on behalf of the respondentState. He prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply.
List on 8th August, 2018.
Cr.MP No.917 of 2018Application is disposed of with a direction to file legible/typed copy of the FIR, dated 22.11.2017 and page Nos. 9 and 10 and marked portion of page No.13 within a period of four weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 11 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP FAO No.361 of 2017 .
11.07.2018 Present: Ms. Poonam Gehlot, Advocate vice counsel for the appellant.
Mr. O.C.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Harsh Bardhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. FAO No.361 of 2017 & CMP No.4946 of 2018 Mr. O.C.Sharma and Mr. Harsh Bardhan, Advocates have filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondents No.1 and 3 respectively. They pray for and are granted two weeks' time to file reply to the application. List thereafter.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 11 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP Cr. Appeal No.592 of 2017 .
16.07.2018 Present: Mr. K.D.Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent.
Pursuant to judgment dated 22nd June, 2018, whereby this Court while allowing the criminal appeal filed by the appellant, held respondentaccused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, respondentaccused has come present in Court.
2. On the last date of hearing i.e. 10 th July, 2018, learned counsel representing the parties, on instructions of their respective clients, stated before this Court that after recording of conviction vide judgment dated 22nd June, 2018 by this Court, parties have resolved their dispute amicably inter se them. By way of amicable settlement, both the parties have agreed that in case an amount of Rs. 10 lac in lump sum is paid to the complainant, complainant shall have no objection in getting the matter compounded under Section 147 of the Act ( for short 'Act'). But since on the last date, there was none to make definite statement with regard to compromise, matter was adjourned for today with direction to the complainant or his authorized representatives to remain present in Court.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP3. Today, during the proceedings of the case, a joint .
application under Section 147 of the Act, has been filed on behalf of the respondentaccused and the complainant/petitioner, placing therewith compromise arrived inter se the parties.
Application is ordered to be taken on record and it be registered.
It has been averred in the application that the parties have resolved to settle their matter amicably in terms of the compromise, wherein respondent/accused has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 in lump sum to the complainant/petitioner towards his liability. As per agreement, respondent/accused shall pay Rs.
5,00,000/ to the complainant within a period of one month, whereas remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ within two months from today i.e on or before 15th September, 2018. It has been also agreed inter se parties that after receipt of entire amount, matter shall be compromised. Though, there is specific averment in the application with regard to compromise/settlement arrived inter se parties, but this Court solely with a view to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the compromise arrived inter se parties, also recorded the statement of Sh. Sudesh Kumar, authorized representative of complainant/petitioner, who otherwise had filed complaint on behalf of the appellant/complainant under Section 138 of the Act, in the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP competent Court of law Sh. Sudesh Kumar, stated on oath that .
application under Section 147 of the Act, praying therein for compounding the offence has been filed jointly on behalf of the complainant as well as accused and it also bears his signatures.
He further stated on oath that as per the settlement/compromise, arrived inter se parties, respondent/accused has agreed to pay total sum of Rs. 10 lac to the complainant towards his liability and in case such amount is paid within two installments as agreed between the parties, complainant/petitioner shall have no objection in getting the matter compounded under Section 147 of the Act. Mr. Sudesh Kumar also stated that in case entire amount as per agreement is received within stipulated time, conviction awarded by this Court can also be quashed and set aside, but compounding, if any, under Section 147 of the Act, be ordered after receipt of the full payment.
4. There is no dispute that this Court vide judgment dated 22nd June, 2018 has held respondentaccused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and now adequate sentence and compensation was left to be awarded to the respondent/accused. But in view of the aforesaid developments, no final order till date has been passed as far as quantum is concerned. Now, question remains that ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP whether this Court after recording conviction has power to .
compound the case under Section 147 of the Act or not?.
5. Learned counsel representing the parties, while inviting attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H (2010)5 SCC 663, fairly submitted that even after recording conviction under Section 138 of the Act, this Court has power to compound the offence while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court while laying certain guidelines has held that in case accused intends to compromise the matter under Section 147 of the Act, which is otherwise a special Act after recording of conviction, prayer made in that regard can be accepted with the leave of the Court.
Hon'ble Apex Court further held that as far as nonobstante clause included in Section 147 of the 1881 Act is concerned, the 1881 Act being a special statute, shall have overriding effect over the provisions of Section 320 of Cr.P.C, relating to compounding of offence and as such, prayer for compounding of offence can be considered by the Court without being influenced by provision contained under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. It would be profitable to reproduce following paras NO. 6 to 15 of the judgment herein:
6. Before examining the guidelines proposed by the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP learned Attorney General, it would be useful to clarify the .
position relating to the compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Even before the insertion of Section 147in the Act (by way of an amendment in 2002) some6. Before examining the guidelines proposed by the learned Attorney General, it would be useful to clarify the position relating to the compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Even before the insertion of Section 147in the Act (by way of an amendment in 2002) some High Courts had permitted the compounding of the offence contemplated by Section 138 during the later stages of litigation. In fact in O.P. Dholakia v. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 SCC 672, a division bench of this Court had permitted the compounding of the offence even though the petitioner's conviction had been upheld by all the three designated forums. After noting that the petitioner had already entered into a compromise with the complainant, the bench had rejected the State's argument that this Court need not interfere with the conviction and sentence since it was open to the parties to enter into a compromise at an earlier stage and that they had not done so. The bench had observed: "... Taking into consideration the nature of the offence in question and the fact that the complainant and the accused have already entered into a compromise, we think it appropriate to grant permission in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, to compound."
7. Similar reliefs were granted in orders reported as Sivasankaran v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2002) 8 SCC 164, Kishore Kumar v. J.K. Corporation Ltd., (2004) 12 SCC 494 and Sailesh Shyam Parsekar v. Baban, (2005) 4 SCC 162, among other cases. As mentioned above, the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 which inserted a specific provision, i.e. Section 147`to make the offences under the Act compoundable'. We can refer to the following extract from the Statement of Objects and Reasons attached to the 2002 amendment which is self explanatory: ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP "Prefatory Note Statement of Objects and Reasons. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was .
amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 wherein a new Chapter XVII was incorporated for penalties in case of dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque. These provisions were incorporated with a view to encourage the culture of use of cheques and enhancing the credibility of the instrument. The existing provisions in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, namely, Sections 138 to 142 in Chapter XVII have been found deficient in dealing with dishonour of cheques. Not only the punishment provided in the Act has proved to be inadequate, the procedure prescribed for the courts to deal with such matters has been found to be cumbersome. The courts are unable to dispose of such cases expeditiously in a time bound manner in view of the procedure contained in the Act. ..."
(emphasis supplied) In order to address the deficiencies referred to above,Section 10 of the 2002 amendment inserted Sections 143, 144, 145, 146 and 147 into the Act, which deal with aspects such as the power of the Court to try cases summarily (Section 143), Mode of service of summons (Section 144), Evidence on affidavit (Section 145), Bank's slip to be considered as prima facie evidence of certain facts (Section 146) and Offences under the Act to be compoundable (Section 147). At present, we are of course concerned with Section 147 of the Act, which reads as follows: "147. Offences to be compoundable. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.
8. At this point, it would be apt to clarify that in view of the nonobstante clause, the compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is controlled ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP by Section 147 and the scheme contemplated by Section 320 .
of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Hereinafter `CrPC'] will not be applicable in the strict sense since the latter is meant for the specified offences under the Indian Penal Code. So far as the CrPC is concerned, Section 320 deals with offences which are compoundable, either by the parties without the leave of the court or by the parties but only with the leave of the Court. Subsection (1) of Section 320 enumerates the offences which are compoundable without the leave of the Court, while sub section (2) of the said section specifies the offences which are compoundable with the leave of the Court. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in the nature of an enabling provision which provides for the compounding of offences prescribed under the same Act, thereby serving as an exception to the general rule incorporated in subsection (9) of Section 320 of the CrPC which states that `No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section'. A bare reading of this provision would lead us to the inference that offences punishable under laws other thanthe Indian Penal Code also cannot be compounded. However, since Section 147 was inserted by way of an amendment to a special law, the same will override the effect of Section 320(9) of the CrPC, especially keeping in mind that Section 147 carries a non obstante clause
9.In Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 305, this Court had examined `whether an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act which is a special law can be compounded'. After taking note of a divergence of views in past decisions, this Court took the following position (C.K. Thakker, J. at Para. 17): " ... This provision is intended to prevent dishonesty on the part of the drawer of negotiable instruments in issuing cheques without sufficient funds or with a view to inducing the payee or holder in due course to act upon it. It thus seeks to promote the efficacy of bank operations and ensures credibility in transacting business through cheques. In such matters, therefore, normally compounding of offences should not be ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP denied. Presumably, Parliament also realised this aspect and inserted Section 147 by the Negotiable .
Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 (Act 55 of 2002). ..."
In the same decision, the court had also noted (Para. 11): "... Certain offences are very serious in which compromise or settlement is not permissible. Some other offences, on the other hand, are not so serious and the law may allow the parties to settle them by entering into a compromise. The compounding of an offence signifies that the person against whom an offence has been committed has received some gratification to an act as an inducement for his abstaining from proceeding further with the case."
10. It would also be pertinent to refer to this Court's decision in R. Rajeshwari v. H.N. Jagadish, (2008) 4 SCC 82, wherein the following observations were made (S.B. Sinha, J. at Para. 12): "Negotiable Instruments Act is a special Act. Section 147 provides for a non obstante clause, stating:
147. Offences to be compoundable. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.
Indisputably, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would be applicable to the proceedings pending before the courts for trial of offences under the said Act. Stricto sensu, however, the table appended to Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted as the provisions mentioned therein refer only to provisions of the Penal Codeand none other."
11. The compounding of the offence at later stages of litigation in cheque bouncing cases has also been held to be permissible in a recent decision of this Court, reported as K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed & Anr., 2009 (14) SCALE 262, wherein Kabir, J. has noted (at Paras. 11, ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP
12): .
"11. As far as the nonobstante clause included in Section 147 of the 1881 Act is concerned, the 1881 Act being a special statute, the provisions of Section 147 will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating to compounding of offences. ...
12. It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we find no reason to reject the application underSection 147 of the aforesaid Act even in a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution."
12. It is evident that the permissibility of the compounding of an offence is linked to the perceived seriousness of the offence and the nature of the remedy provided. On this point we can refer to the following extracts from an academic commentary [Cited from:
K.N.C. Pillai, R.V. Kelkar's Criminal Procedure, 5th edn.
(Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2008) at p. 444]: "A crime is essentially a wrong against the society and the State. Therefore, any compromise between the accused person and the individual victim of the crime should not absolve the accused from criminal responsibility. However, where the offences are essentially of a private nature and relatively not quite serious, the Code considers it expedient to recognize some of them as compoundable offences and some others as compoundable only with the permission of the court. ..."
In a recently published commentary, the following observations have been made with regard to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act [Cited from:
Arun Mohan, Some thoughts towards law reforms on the topic of Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act Tackling an avalanche of cases (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2009) at p. 5] ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP "... Unlike that for other forms of crime, the .
punishment here (in so far as the complainant is concerned) is not a means of seeking retribution, but is more a means to ensure payment of money. The complainant's interest lies primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the drawer of the cheque in jail. The threat of jail is only a mode to ensure recovery. As against the accused who is willing to undergo a jail term, there is little available as remedy for the holder of the cheque.
If we were to examine the number of complaints filed which were `compromised' or `settled' before the final judgment on one side and the cases which proceeded to judgment and conviction on the other, we will find that the bulk was settled and only a miniscule number continued."
13. It is quite obvious that with respect to the offence of dishonour of cheques, it is the compensatory aspect of the remedy which should be given priority over the punitive aspect. There is also some support for the apprehensions raised by the learned Attorney General that a majority of cheque bounce cases are indeed being compromised or settled by way of compounding, albeit during the later stages of litigation thereby contributing to undue delay in justice delivery. The problem herein is with the tendency of litigants to belatedly choose compounding as a means to resolve their dispute. Furthermore, the written submissions filed on behalf of the learned Attorney General have stressed on the fact that unlike Section 320 of the CrPC, Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides no explicit guidance as to what stage compounding can or cannot be done and whether compounding can be done at the instance of the complainant or with the leave of the court. As mentioned earlier, the learned Attorney General's submission is that in the absence of statutory guidance, parties are choosing compounding as a method of last resort instead of opting for it as soon as the Magistrates take cognizance of the complaints. One explanation for such behaviour could be that the accused persons are willing to take the chance of progressing ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP through the various stages of litigation and then choose .
the route of settlement only when no other route remains. While such behaviour may be viewed as rational from the viewpoint of litigants, the hard facts are that the undue delay in opting for compounding contributes to the arrears pending before the courts at various levels. If the accused is willing to settle or compromise by way of compounding of the offence at a later stage of litigation, it is generally indicative of some merit in the complainant's case. In such cases it would be desirable if parties choose compounding during the earlier stages of litigation. If however, the accused has a valid defence such as a mistake, forgery or coercion among other grounds, then the matter can be litigated through the specified forums.
14. It may be noted here that Section 143 of the Act makes an offence under Section 138 triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC). After trial, the progression of further legal proceedings would depend on whether there has been a conviction or an acquittal.
In the case of conviction, an appeal would lie to the Court of Sessions under Section 374(3)(a) of the CrPC;
thereafter a Revision to the High Court under Section 397/401 of the CrPC and finally a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking special leave to appeal under 136 of the Constitution of India. Thus, in case of conviction there will be four levels of litigation. 7 In the case of acquittal by the JMFC, the complainant could appeal to the High Court under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, and thereafter for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136. In such an instance, therefore, there will be three levels of proceedings.
15. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay .
settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed: THE GUIDELINES
(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.
Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the Court before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of compounding during the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate's Court or .
a Court of Sessions, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority.
6. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court coupled with the facts that this Court enjoys power under Section 147 of the Act, to compound the offence, joint prayer made on behalf of the parties for compounding the offence deserves to be considered.
Since final order, if any, in term of the joint prayer made in the application is to be passed after receipt of full payment agreed to be made by the accused, this Court deems it fit to adjourn this Case till 17th August, 2018, on which date, respondentaccused shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ as per compromise.
7. However, it is made clear that prayer for compounding the offence shall be considered and decided by this Court after receipt of full payment i.e. Rs. 10 lac on or before 15th September, 2018.
8. Needless to say, in case first installment as agreed ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP .
by the respondentaccused is not paid on or before 17 th August, 2018, he shall surrender before this Court on the next date of hearing in terms of the judgment passed by this Court.
List on 17th August, 2018.
16 July, 2018
th
( shankar)
r to
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:42 :::HCHP
CWP No.1353 of 2018 with CWP's No. 1347, 1354, .
1355, 1374, 1375, 184,1393,1413,1416,1501,1504 to 1508, 1517 and 1524 of 2018 17.07.2018 Present: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Kulbhushan Khajuria, Vinod Chauhan, Pradeep K. Sharma, Raj Negi, Pawanish Shukla, Vivek Singh Thakur and Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocates, for the respective petitioners. Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, for the respondentState in all the petitions.
Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for the respondentUniversity.
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bharat Thakur, Mr. Deven Khanna and Mr. Harsh Kalta, Advocates, for respondent No.4 in CWP No.1353 of 2018.
Mr.B.C.Negi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.5 in CWP No.1353 of 2018.
Mr.R.M.Bisht, Advocate, for respondent No.6 in CWP No.1353 of 2018.
Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.7 in CWP No.1353 of 2018.
Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, states that Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General is not available today as he has to go to Delhi in connection with some case in Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, matter may be taken up on some other date. Mr. Thakur, on instructions, further informed this Court that 9 seats have been blocked/kept vacant and same shall be filled up after out come of the present writ petitions.
At this stage, Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP representing the petitioners, states that though in the judgment .
rendered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J., it has been categorically held that children, who had participated in counseling shall be entitled for admission to the Medical/ Dental colleges, but there are certain writ petitioners, who though have participated in the counseling, but their forms were rejected on the ground that they had not approached this Court by way of writ petitions. Aforesaid issue shall be determined at the time of final disposal of the cases at hand.
List on 23rd July, 2018, as prayed for by learned Advocate General.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 17 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP Cr.MP(M) No.610 of 2017 .
17.07.2018 Present: Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, for the applicantState.
Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, for the respondent.
Mr. S.C.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, prays for and is granted two weeks' time to place on record certified copy of judgment dated 22.12.2016, passed in Criminal Appeal No.543 of 208, whereby aforesaid appeal having been filed by the State was rejected on the ground of maintainability.
List after two weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 17 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.85 of 2008 .
17.07.2018 Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Nemo for the defendants.
Pursuant to court notice issued to the plaintiffs, Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, SDO Gagret, has come present in Court. He prays for and is granted two weeks' time to do the needful in terms of order dated 26.6.2018.
r List on 6th August, 2018.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 17 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.64 of 2008 .
17.07.2018 Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for defendant No.1.
Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate, for defendant No.2.
As per report of the Registry, report of Local Commissioner i.e. Tehsildar, Chirgaon is still awaited. Vide order dated 26.6.2018, this Court had specifically directed the Registry to remind the Tehsildar, Chirgaon to submit its report in terms of order dated 29.5.2018, however same has not been filed till date.
Learned counsel representing the parties, on instructions, state that since certified copy of order, dated 29.5.2018 was not received till passing of order dated 26.6.2018, no action was taken by the Tehsildar, Chirgaon to effect the partition of the property in question in terms of order, dated 29.5.2018. Learned counsel representing the parties further informed that after recording of order, dated 26.6.2018, parties have already appeared before the Tehsildar, Chirgaon and he is in process of complying the order, dated 29.5.2018.
Consequently, in view of the above, this Court deems it fit to adjourn the matter for four weeks, to enable the Tehsildar, Chirgaon to do the needful in terms of order, dated 29.5.2018. Learned counsel representing the parties undertake to ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP cause presence of the parties or their authorized representative on 6th August, 2018 before the Tehsildar, Chirgaon to enable him .
to comply with the order dated 29.5.2018.
Learned Additional Advocate General, undertakes to apprise the Tehsildar, Chirgaon with regard to passing of today's order, so that needful is done within stipulated period.
List on 4th September, 2018, on which date, Tehsildar, Chirgaon shall submit his report.
Copy dasti.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 17 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP Arb. Case No.57 of 2015 .
17.07.2018 Present: Mr. J.S.Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parmod Negi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, for the respondentState.
Sequel to order dated 6th July, 2018, Sh. R.P. Verma, EngineerinChief, HP,PWD and Sh. A.K.Soni, Executive Engineer, Arki have come present in Court.
Sh. R.P. Verma, EngineerinChief has also filed his affidavit, explaining therein circumstances under which an amount of Rs.79,62,052/ was remitted into the bank account of the petitioner by way of RTGS without having obtained undertaking on the affidavit in terms of minutes of 8 th meeting held on 15.10.2016, wherein it was resolved that before making payment towards full and final settlement arrived inter se the department and the petitioner, undertaking in affidavit duly attested by the First Class Magistrate shall be procured from the petitioner to the extent that all the claims pertaining to this work against the agreement in dispute are fully and finally settled and nothing is due from the Executive Engineer, Arki and he shall withdraw all pending cases from Hon'ble High Court, Arbitration Tribunal or any other statutory authorities against the work in question ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP Having carefully perused the affidavit, this Court is not satisfied and convinced with the reasons stated by the .
EngineerinChief for releasing the aforesaid amount without having obtained the undertaking in affidavit.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, prays for and is granted one week's time to file better supplementary affidavit detailing therein the circumstances which led to the release of the amount without complying the conditions contained in the minutes of 8th meeting held on 15.10.2016.
List on 31st July, 2018, on which date, EngineerinChief, shall personally remain present in Court.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 17 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP Cr. Appeal No.62 of 2017 .
17.07.2018 Present: Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur,Additional Advocate Generals, for the respondentState.
List on 7th August, 2018, as prayed for by learned counsel for the parties.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 17 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP FAO No.373 of 2017 .
17.07.2018 Present: Mr. B.S.Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Gaurav Gautam, Advocate vice counsel for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4.
On the request of learned counsel representing the appellants, list this matter after two weeks.
17 July, 2018
th
( shankar)
r to
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP
Cr.MMO No.337 of 2015 a/w
.
Cr.MMO No.33 and 36 of 2016
17.07.2018 Present: Mr. R.K.Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav
Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, for the respondentState. Mr. Rajiv Rai, Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Mukesh Sharma and Mr. Raj Negi, Advocates, for the respective respondents in all the petitions.
r List on 7th August, 2018, as prayed for by learned counsel for the parties.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 17 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP Cr.MP(M) No.883 of 2018 .
17.07.2018 Present: Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr.Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, for the respondentState.
Issue notice. Mr. S.C.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, waives notice on behalf of the respondent State. Reply/status report, if any, be filed on 31st July, 2018.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 17 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP Cr.MMO No.2 of 2015 .
17.07.2018 Present: Mr. Rajesh Batra and Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr.Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, for the respondentState.
Nemo for respondent No.2.
Mr. Dinesh Bhatia, Advocate vice counsel for respondent No.3.
List on 17th August, 2018 as prayed for by learned counsel for the parties.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 17 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.21 of 2017 .
17.07.2018 Present: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for defendants No.1 to 3.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, for the defendantState.
Statements of PW2, namely Ramesh Gupta, Inspector, office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Railway Board Building, Shimla and PW3, Anil Kumar, Junior Technical Assistant, Office of Registrar of CompanyCum Official Liquidator,Himachal Pradesh at Chandigarh are recorded, whereas another plaintiff witness namely, Sh. Ankush Verma, Clerk, Bank of India, the Mall Shimla, though came present, but since he has not brought the relevant record, his statement could not be recorded. During the proceedings of the case aforesaid bank official invited attention of this Court to the communication sent by Chief Manager of the Bank to demonstrate that record is not available, but it has not been mentioned whether the record stands destroyed or weeded out. In the aforesaid background, the statement of aforesaid PW4 is deferred for the time being.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel representing the plaintiffs prays for and is granted two weeks' time to take steps ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP for summoning the remaining plaintiff's witnesses including PW
4. In the event of taking such steps, Additional Registrar .
(Judicial) may fix date for their examination, preferably in the month of September, 2018.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 17 July, 2018 th ( shankar) r to ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP CMP No. 6239,6240 and 6241 of 2018 in .
FAO No.22 of 201718.07.2018 Present: Mr. Jeevan Kumar, Advocate, for the non applicant/appellant.
Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate, for the applicants/respondents.
By way of instant applications filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of applicants/respondents No.1 to 3 for the release of amount of compensation in their favour.
2. Mr. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel representing the nonapplicant/appellant, states that he does not intend to file any reply to the applications and has no objection in case some reasonable amount is released in favour of the applicants/respondents No.1 to 3 during the pendency of the present appeal.
3. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.23,54,485/+ Rs.25,000/ stands deposited in the Registry of this Court pursuant to order dated 13.1.2017, passed by this Court while staying the operation/execution of impugned award, dated 31 st August, 2016, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Una, District Una, H.P.
4. Averments contained in the applications, which have been otherwise not controverted, clearly suggest that ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP applicants/respondents No.1 to 3 being old father, mother and wife were totally dependent upon the deceased, who lost his life .
in motor vehicle accident and at present they do not have any source of income and are wholly dependent upon the relatives.
Since, some amount is required by the applicants/respondents No.1 to 3 for maintaining themselves, this Court sees no reason to deny the relief, as claimed in the applications at hand.
5. Accordingly, in view of the above, the present applications are allowed and Registry is directed to release a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ in favour of applicant/respondent No.1, Smt. Santosh Kumari, Rs. 2,00,000/ in favour of applicant/respondent No.2, Smt. Chanchala Devi and Rs.
1,00,000/ in favour of applicant/respondent No.3, Sh. Roshan Lal, out of their defined shares, by remitting the same in their bank accounts, details whereof are given in Annexure A1 annexed with the applications, subject to the verification of the Accounts Branch. Ordered accordingly.
Needless to say, remaining amount shall be invested in the shape of the FDRs. The applications stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 18 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP Cr.MP(M) No. 1547 of 2017 .
20.07.2018 Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate vice counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr.Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState.
List on 3rd August, 2018, as prayed for by learned counsel for the parties.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 20 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.113 of 2011 .
20.07.2018 Present: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Jaswal,Advocate, for defendant No.2(b).
Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate vice counsel for defendants No.3 to 7.
Mr. Kamal Kumar, Advocate vice counsel for defendants No.8 and 9.
Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, learned counsel representing the plaintiff, states that during the pendency of the present suit, plaintiff No.1(a), namely Sh. H.S.Serna has expired on 14th July, 2018 and as such, appropriate steps are required to be taken for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.1(a).
Mr. Vashishat, learned counsel representing the plaintiffs, prays for and is granted three weeks' time to move appropriate application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.1(a).
Though, in terms of order, dated 20.4.2018 plaintiff's witnesses namely Sh. Ghan Shyam Singh (PW2), Sh. Uma Shankar(PW3), Sh. Padam Parkash (Pw4) and Smt. Sumidha have come present, but on account of ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP aforesaid development, matter cannot proceed further till .
the time LRs of deceased plaintiff No.1(a) are brought on record. Accordingly, the plaintiff's witnesses, who have come present in Court are discharged for today.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 20 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP RSA No.225 of 2003 .
20.07.2018 Present: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C.Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.1(a) to 1(d).
List on 24th August, 2018, as prayed for by learned counsel for the parties.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 20 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP RSA No.344 of 2004 .
20.07.2018 Present: Mr. K.D.Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Nemo for respondents No.11(e) and 11(f).
Learned counsel representing the parties state at bar that issue with regard to maintainability of composite appeal filed against the judgment rendered in the main suit as well as counter claims stands referred to larger Bench and as such, matter may be adjourned till the time that issue is decided.
Accordingly, in view of the above, the matter is adjourned by six weeks.
CMP No.5380 of 2018By way of instant application filed under Section 100(5) CPC, permission has been sought from this Court to raise an additional substantial question of law.
Mr. Ajeet Jaswal, learned counsel representing the nonapplicant/respondent, prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply to the application.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 20 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP RSA No.7 of 2005 alongwith .
Crossobjection NO.36 of 2005 20.07.2018 Present: Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C.Verma, Advocate, for the appellants.
Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate vice counsel for the respondents.
Ms. Leena Guleria, learned counsel representing the respondents stated that instant matter is to be argued by Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, who had to leave the Court abruptly on account of some personal work.
Accordingly, in view of the above,list this matter after two weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 20 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:43 :::HCHP RSA No.550 of 2007 .
20.07.2018 Present: Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate vice counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Karan Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant stated that instant matter is to be argued by Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate, who had to leave the Court abruptly on account of some personal work.
Accordingly, in view of the above,list this matter after two weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 20 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP RSA No.550 of 2007 20.07.2018 Present: Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
.
Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate vice counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Karan Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant stated that instant matter is to be argued by Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate, who had to leave the Court abruptly on account of some personal work.
r to Accordingly, in view of the above,list this matter after two weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 20 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP RSA No.550 of 2007 .
20.07.2018 Present: Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate vice counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Karan Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant stated that instant matter is to be argued by Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate, who had to leave the Court abruptly on account of some personal work.
Accordingly, in view of the above,list this matter after two weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 20 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP Cr.MMO No.185 and 265 of 2015 20.07.2018 Present: Mr. R.K.Bawa, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ajay .
Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner in Cr.MMO No.265 of 2015.
Mr.S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the State in both the petitions.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 in Cr.MMO No.185 of 2015.
r Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, prays for and is granted two weeks' time to complete his brief. List thereafter.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 20 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP Civil Suit NO.58 of 2016 20.07.2018 Present: Mr. Manoj Bagga, Advocate vice counsel for the .
plaintiff.
Defendants exparte.
Mr. Manoj Bagga, learned counsel representing the plaintiff stated that instant matter is to be argued by Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, who had to leave the Court abruptly on account of some personal work.
r Accordingly, in view of the above,list this matter after two weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 20 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.27 of 2018 23.07.2018 Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dheeraj .
K. Vashisht, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate, for defendants No.1 to 5 and 9 to 11.
Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate, for defendants No.6 and 7. Mr. Mukesh Thakur, Advocate, for defendant No.8.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General for defendants No.12 and 13. List on 30.7.2018, as prayed for by learned counsel for the parties.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 23rdJuly, 2018 ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP Cr.MP(M) No.903 of 2018 23.07.2018 Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate vice counsel for the .
petitioner.
Mr. S.C.Sharma & Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState.
Issue notice. Mr. S.C.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, waives notice on behalf of the respondent State. Reply/status report, if any, be filed on 6th August, 2018.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 23 July, 2018 rd ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP Cr.MP(M) No.904 of 2018 23.07.2018 Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate vice counsel for the .
petitioner.
Mr. S.C.Sharma & Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState.
Issue notice. Mr. S.C.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, waives notice on behalf of the respondent State. Reply/status report, if any, be filed on 6th August, 2018.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 23 July, 2018 rd ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP Cr. Revision No.272 of 2017 23.07.2018 Present: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
.
Mr. C.S.Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent.
Inadvertently, while recording order dated 17 th July, 2017, this Court omitted to mention amount in the bailable warrants to be issued. Accordingly, Registry is directed to issue bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.25,000/ with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Police Officer against the petitioner, returnable for 4th September, 2018 .
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 23 July, 2018 rd ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP CMPMO No.469 of 2017 23.07.2018 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, for the plaintiff/ .
petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 already exparte.
CMP No.10668 of 2017By way of instant application filed under Section 89 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prayer has been made to refer the matter to medication for amicable settlement inter se parties. However, Mr. Vikrant Chandel, learned counsel representing the non applicant/respondent, states that he has definite instruction to state that there is no possibility of amicable settlement between the parties and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending the matter to mediation.
In view of the above, learned counsel representing the applicant/plaintiff does not press this application at this stage and as such, same is disposed of accordingly.
CMPMO No.469 of 2017 & CMP No.1818/2017 Learned counsel representing respondent No.1 states that he does not intend to file any reply to the application and matter may be heard on the basis of the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP material available on record. In view of the above, list this matter next week, as jointly prayed for by learned counsel .
for the parties.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 23 July, 2018 rd ( shankar) r to ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP FAO No.214 of 2018 23.07.2018 Present: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for the appellants.
.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.1,2 and 7. Mr.S.C.Sharma & Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentsState.
FAO No.214 of 2018Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and 7. Though, respondent No.7 stands already proceeded against exparte, but no formal application for recalling order, dated 30.5.2018, whereby respondent No.7 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte, has been filed. However, on the oral request of Mr. Neeraj Gupta, who has already filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent No.7, order dated 30.5.2018 is recalled and respondent No.7 is permitted to join the proceedings.
Learned counsel representing the parties state that since very small point is involved in the case and as such, same can be heard at pre admission stage. Accordingly, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, list this matter after two weeks.
CMP NO.3677 of 2018 Interim order dated 27.4.2018 is made absolute. The application stands disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 23rdJuly, 2018 ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP Cr.MMO No.273 of 2018 23.07.2018 Present: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
.
Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the respondent.
Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent/complainant. He prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file Power of Attorney. List thereafter.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 23rdJuly, 2018 ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.10 of 2016 23.07.2018 Present: Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate, for the .
plaintiff.
Mr.Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, for the defendant.
Since learned counsel representing the plaintiff failed to take steps in terms of order, dated 31.7.2017 for issued for today.
r to summoning the plaintiff's witnesses, notice could not be Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, learned counsel representing the plaintiff prays for and is granted one week further time to take steps in terms of order dated 31.7.2017 for summoning plaintiff's witnesses. In the event of taking steps within aforesaid period, Additional Registrar(Judicial) to fix date for the examination of the plaintiff witnesses.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 23 July, 2018 rd ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP CMP(M) No.1133 of 2017 23.07.2018 Present: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for the applicant.
.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. Nemo for respondent No.5.
CMP(M) No.1133 of 2017Reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 stands filed, where it has been stated that no cogent and convincing reason has been assigned in the application for filing the accompanying appeal beyond the period of limitation and as such, same deserved to be dismissed.
However, this Court having perused the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, is of the view that delay of 58 days in maintaining the appeal, has been sufficiently explained and as such, same deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, application allowed and delay is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
FAO No. 371 of 2018Be registered.
Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, whereas none has come present on behalf of respondent No.5 despite service and as such, he is ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
Learned counsel representing the parties state that since very small point is involved in the case and as such, same can be heard and decided at pre admission stage. Accordingly, on the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP joint request of learned counsel for the parties, list this matter after two weeks.
.
CMP No.6933 of 2018Learned counsel representing the nonapplicants/ respondents, states he does not intend to file any reply to the application and he has no objection in case the execution/ operation of the award is stayed subject to the applicant's depositing the entire award amount alongwith uptodate interest, within a period of four weeks from today.
Learned counsel representing the applicant/ appellant, states that entire award amount in terms of the award passed by the learned Commissioner Under Employee's Compensation At, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. stands deposited ans as such, present application may be allowed.
Accordingly, in view of the above, the operation/ execution of the impugned award/judgment dated 30.11.2016, passed by learned Commissioner Under Employee's Compensation At, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., in Civil Suit No.49 of 2013 titled as Usha Devi and others versus Rajat Thakur and another;
shall remain stayed. Application stands disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 23rdJuly, 2018 ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP Cr. Revision No.1 of 2018 24.07.2018 Present: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, for the respondent.
Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner, fairly stated that petitioneraccused has failed to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/ on or before 15.7.018 in terms of order dated 27.4.2018 and as such, appropriate orders may be passed.
Vide order dated 2.1.2018, this Court while suspending the substantive sentence imposed by the learned court below, had directed the petitioner/accused to deposit amount of compensation and furnish personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks. But, despite repeated opportunities petitioner has failed to comply with order dated 2.1.2018 and as such , this Court has no option, but to vacate the order. Accordingly, order dated 2.1.2018 is vacated. Respondent is at liberty to get the judgment of the trial Court executed, in accordance with law.
List on 30.7.2018 for final hearing.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 24 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP FAO No.505 of 2015 24.07.2018 Present: Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate, for the appellant.
.
Mr. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5.
Ms. Rubeena Bhutt, Advocate vice counsel for respondents No.6 and 7.
CMP No.5283 of 2018rDespite sufficient opportunities, nonapplicant/ appellant has failed to file reply to the application having been filed by applicants/respondents No.1 and 2, praying therein for release of the amount.
2. Mr. Aman Sood, learned counsel representing the nonapplicant/appellant, states that in case amount is ordered to be released at this stage, it may be very difficult for the non applicant/appellant to recover the same in the event of appeal being allowed by this Court and as such, instead of releasing the amount, as prayed for in the application, main matter may be heard and decided on merits. He further stated that in case this Court intends to accept the prayer made in the application, in that eventuality, some reasonable amount may be ordered to be released in favour of applicants/respondent No.1 and 2.
3. In view of the averments contained in the application, where it has been stated that applicants/respondents were fully dependents upon the deceased and as such, they ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP require money to meet their day to day expenses, prayer made in the application deserve to be allowed.
.
4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present application is allowed and Registry is directed to release a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ each in favour of applicants/respondents No.1 and 2 from their respective shares, by remitting the same in their bank accounts, details whereof are given in para5 of the application, subject to the verification of the Accounts Branch.
The application is disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 24th July, 2018 ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.43 and 44 of 2016 24.07.2018 Present: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate, for the .
plaintiff(s).
Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for the defendant(s).
OMP No.49 & 111 of 2018 List next week, as prayed for by learned counsel for the plaintiff(s). r (Sandeep Sharma) Judge 24th July, 2018 ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP Cr.MMO No.20 of 2017 24.07.2018 Present: Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate, for the .
petitioners.
As per report of the Registry, notice issued to sole respondent has been received back unserved with the report that no such named person has been residing on the given address for the last three years.
Mr. Dibender Ghosh, learned counsel representing the petitioners, prays for and is granted two weeks' time to take steps for the service of sole respondent. In the event of taking such steps, notice be issued to the said respondent, returnable for 28th August, 2018.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 24 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.24 of 2017 24.07.2018 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the .
plaintiff.
Mr. Abhishek Raj, Advocate, for defendants No. 1 and 2.
Mr. S.C.Sharma & Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Addi tonal Advocate General, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for defendants No. 3 to 6. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, for defendant No.7.
Despite repeated orders passed by this Court, adequate steps have not been taken by the Deputy Director, Education for issuance of feasibility certificate. On the last date of hearing i.e.10th July, 2018, this Court was informed by learned Additional Advocate General that Deputy Director, Education is supposed to visit the premises tomorrow, whereafter necessary action shall be taken for issuance of feasibility certificate.
2. On 10th July, 2018, this Court taking note of aforesaid submission having been made by learned Additional Advocate General, had granted two weeks' time to do the needful, but till date nothing has been done.
3. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned Additional Advocate General has invited attention of this Court to communication, dated 12.7.2018 sent by the Deputy Director, Education to demonstrate that matter is under active ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP consideration and necessary action shall be taken in the matter at the earliest.
.
4. This Court having perused the averments contained in the communication, dated 12.7.2018 is not convinced and satisfied with the progress made with regard to issuance of feasibility certificate because no reason whatsoever, has been assigned in the communication for non issuance of feasibility certificate.
5. Though, learned Additional Advocate General, states that one last opportunity may be given to the Deputy Director, Education to comply with the order passed by this Court, but having perused the previous orders passed by this Court, whereby repeated opportunities have been granted, this Court is not inclined to accept the aforesaid prayer having been made by learned Additional Advocate General. However, by way of indulgence, last and final opportunity of one week is granted to the Deputy Direction, Education to take necessary steps, failing which, he shall personally remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing.
List on 7th August, 2018.
Copy dasti.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 24 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.55 of 2017 24.07.2018 Present: Mr. Dhairya Sushant, Advocate, for the plaintiff.
.
Mr. P.S.Goverdhan, Advocate, for the defendants.
OMP No.369 of 2018Learned counsel representing the nonapplicants/ defendants prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply. List thereafter.
r to (Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
24th July, 2018
(shankar)
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP
CMPMO No.283 of 2017
24.07.2018 Present: Mr. H.R.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
.
Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondents.
CMP No.6790 of 2018For the reasons set out in the application, the same is allowed. Name of proforma respondent No.3 is ordered to be deleted from the array of the respondents. Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the memo of parties on the basis of the amended memo annexed with the application. The application is disposed of.
CMPMO No.283 of 2017Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.
List after two weeks, as prayed for.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 24th July, 2018 (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP RSA No. 373 of 2005 24.07.2018 Present: Mr. Ajit Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.
.
Mr. Rajinish K. Lall, Advocate, for the respondents.
Sh. Ajit Gupta, learned counsel representing the appellant states that though he is ready with the matter but on account of some personal difficulty, he is not in a position to argue the case today and as such, matter may be taken up on some other date Accordingly, in view of the above, list this matter after two weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 24th July, 2018 (vinod) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:44 :::HCHP RSA No. 373 of 2005 24.07.2018 Present: Mr. Ajit Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.
.
Mr. Rajinish K. Lall, Advocate, for the respondents.
Sh. Ajit Gupta, learned counsel representing the appellant states that though he is ready with the matter but on account of some personal difficulty, he is not in a position to argue the case today and as such, matter may be taken up on some other date Accordingly, in view of the above, list this matter after two weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 24th July, 2018 (vinod) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP RSA No. 551 of 2006 24.07.2018 Present: Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate, for the appellant.
.
Mr. Dinesh Bhatia, Advocate vice counsel, for the respondent.
Sh. Dinesh Bhatia, learned counsel representing the respondent states that instant matter is to be argued by learned Senior counsel namely Mr. Ramakant Sharma, who is out of station on account of admission of her daughter and as such, matter may be taken up on some other date.
Accordingly, in view of the above, list this matter after two weeks.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 24th July, 2018 (vinod) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP Arb. Case No. 118 of 2016 24.07.2018 Present: Mr. S.C. Sharma and Dinesh Thakur, Additional .
Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the petitioner.
Ms. Neetu Sharma, Advocate vice counsel, for the respondent.
Ms. Neetu Sharma, learned vice counsel representing the respondent states that instant matter is to be argued by Sh. Sumit Raj Sharma, Advocate, who is not present today on account of some personal work and as such, matter may be taken up on some other date.
Though, this Court after having perused the previous orders passeMr. S.C. Sharma and Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the petitioner. d by this Court, whereby matter was repeatedly adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the respondent, sees no reasons to grant further time, however, as a matter of indulgence, matter is adjourned for 21.08.2018, on which date, matter shall be heard and decided on the basis of the material available on record and no request for adjournment shall be entertained on behalf of the petitioner.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 24th July, 2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP (vinod) .
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP Arb No. 37 of 201024.07.2018 Present: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate vice counsel for the .
petitioner.
Mr. S.C. Sharma and Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.
List after two weeks, as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 24th July, 2018 (vinod) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP FAO No. 4241 of 2013 24.07.2018 Present: Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate for the appellant.
.
Mr. Debinder Ghosh, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2.
Mr. Dinesh Bhatia, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Learned counsel representing the parties states that instant appeal is required to be heard and decided along with FAO No. 77 of 2014, as both the appeals arising out of the common award.
Accordingly, in view of the above, list this matter after two weeks alongwith FAO No.77 of 2014.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 24th July, 2018 (vinod) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP Cr. Appeal No. 333 of 2017 24.07.2018 Present: Mr. Vikas Chandel, Advocate vice Mr. Manoj .
Pathak, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. S.C. Sharma and Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.
List after four weeks, as prayed for by learned counsel for the appellant.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 24th July, 2018 (vinod) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP RSA No. 495 of 2007 24.07.2018 Present: Nemo for the appellant.
.
Sh. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Despite repeated calls and pass overs none has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant. However, in the interest of justice, matter is adjourned by four weeks.
r to (Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
24th July, 2018
(vinod)
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP
Cr.MP(M) No.913 of 2018
24.07.2018 Present: Ms. Ritu Raj Sharma,Advocate, for the petitioner.
.
Mr. S.C.Sharma & Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState.
Issue notice. Mr. S.C.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, waives notice on behalf of the respondent State. Reply/status report, if any, be filed on 31st July, 2018.
In the meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, in case FIR No.67 of 2018, dated 8.7.2018, under Sections 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Bharmour, District Chamba H.P, he shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Petitioner is directed to join the investigation at 10:00 AM on 25.7.2018, failing which, police shall be at liberty to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
Copy dasti.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 24th July, 2018 (vinod) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP Civil Revision No.18 of 2018 30.07.2018 Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
.
Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate, for the respondent.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be satisfied in case some reasonable time is granted to vacate the demised premises in terms of the judgment passed by the learned courts below.
Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel representing the respondent, states that respondent is not averse to the aforesaid prayer having been made on behalf of the petitioner, but some reasonable time may be granted by this Court to vacate the demised premises.
Learned counsel representing the petitioner undertakes to cause presence of some responsible officer of the petitionersociety, so that while accepting the aforesaid request having been made on behalf of the petitioner, his/her statement is recorded and case is disposed of accordingly.
List on 31st July, 2018, on which date, some responsible officer of the petitionersociety shall remain present in Court.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 30 July, 2018 th ( shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP FAO (HMA) No.281 of 2018 30.07.2018 Present: Mr. N.K.Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj .
Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate, for the respondent.` Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the sole respondent.
Learned counsel representing the parties fairly state that keeping in view the controversy involved interse parties, effort can be made towards amicable settlement interse parties and as such, both the parties may be summoned.
Accordingly, in view of the above, list this matter on 27th August, 2018, on which date, both the parties shall remain present in Court.
CMP No.5212 of 2018.
Interim order dated 18.6.2018 is made absolute. The application stands disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 30 July, 2018 th (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP Cr.MP(M) No.949 of 2018 30.07.2018 Present: Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Advocate, for the .
petitioner.
Mr. S.C.Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState.
Issue notice. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, waives notice on behalf of the respondent State. Reply/status report, if any, be filed on 6th August, 2018.
In the meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner in case FIR No.153 of 2018, dated 22.6.2018, under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Chamba City District Chamba H.P, he shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Needless to add, the petitioner shall also join the investigation as and when required by the investigating Officer; shall not hamper the investigation and temper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. He shall also comply with the conditions as contained in Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Copy dasti.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 30 July, 2018 th (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP Arbitration Case No.46 of 2018 .
30.07.2018 Present: Mr. J.S.Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent.
Arbitration Case No.46 of 2018 Mr. Janesh Gupta, learned counsel representing the any. List thereafter.
r to respondent prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply, if OMP No.328 of 2018 By way of instant application filed under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner for staying the operation/ execution of the impugned award, dated 30.3.2018, passed by the learned Arbitrator Learned counsel representing the nonapplicant/ respondent states that he does not intend to file any reply to the application and has no objection in case the operation/execution of the impugned award is stayed subject to applicant's depositing the entire award amount alongwith uptodate interest in the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed and operation/execution of the impugned award, dated 30.3.2018, is stayed subject to the applicant's depositing the entire award ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP amount alongwith uptodate interest within a period of four weeks from today. Application stands disposed of.
.
Copy dasti.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 30 July, 2018 th (shankar) r to ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP Cr.MP(M) No.710 of 2018 .
30.07.2018 Present: Mr. S.C.Sharma & Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the applicant/appellant. Mr.Anoop Chitkara, Advocate with Ms. Sheetal Vayas, Advocate, for the respondent.
Cr.MP(M) No.710 of 2018Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the respondent.
Learned counsel representing the respondent, states that he does not intend to file any reply to the application and has no objection in case the delay in maintaining the criminal appeal is condoned and the appeal is decided on merits.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 17 days in maintaining the appeal, which has been otherwise sufficiently explained in the application, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Appeal be registered.
Cr.MP(M) No.709 of 2018Leave to appeal granted. The application stands disposed of.
Cr. Appeal No.______ of 2018 Admit.
List in due Course.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 30 July, 2018 th (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP CIVIL SUIT NO.56 of 2018 .
30.07.2018 Present: Mr. Dinesh Bhatia, Advocate vice counsel for the plaintiff.
Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the defendants.
Civil Suit No.56 & OMP No.252 of 2018 Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the defendants. He prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file Power of Attorney as well reply to the stay application.
List thereafter.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 30 July, 2018 th (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP CMP(M) No.599 of 2018 .
30.07.2018 Present: Mr. Devinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 7.
Mr. S.C.Sharma & Mr. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.8 and 9.
r to CMP(M) No.599 of 2018 Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 7.
Learned counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 7, states that he does not intend to file any reply to the application and has no objection in case the delay in maintaining the civil Revision is condoned and the petition is decided on merits.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 53 days in maintaining the petition, which has been otherwise sufficiently explained in the application, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Petition be registered.
Civil Revision Petition No.___ of 2018 Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel representing respondents No.1 to 7, prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file Power of Attorney as well as to complete his brief, so that matter is heard and decided on the basis of the material ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP available on record. List thereafter.
CMPST No.6770 of 2018.
Notice in the aforesaid terms. Reply, if any, be filed on or before the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile, operation and execution of impugned order dated 1.12.2017, passed by learned Executing Court(Additional District Judge) Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. and subsequent proceedings in Execution Petition No.13 of 2017, titled as Pune Ram Vs. LAC and others; shall remain stayed.
Copy dasti.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 30th July, 2018 (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP Civil Suit No.30 of 2015 .
30.07.2018 Present: Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for the plaintiffs.
Mr.S.C.Sharma & Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState. Statement of PW7, namely Ram Krishan stands recorded. Though, other witnesses namely, Kuldeep and Amit Kumar (PW8 & 9) have come present, but learned counsel representing the plaintiffs states that he intends to give up them being repetitive.
Now to come up for remaining evidence of the plaintiffs, on a date to be fixed by Additional Registrar(Judicial).
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 30 July, 2018 th (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:02:45 :::HCHP