Himachal Pradesh Court March 1954 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rattan Singh and ors. Vs. Sardool and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1954
Reported in: AIR1954HP73
Ramabhadran, J.C.1. This was filed as an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (u), C. P. Code, against the order of, the learned District Judge, Mandi, remanding the case for retrial by the Subordinate Judge of Mandi. From a perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, however, it is clear that the remand was not made under Order 41, Rule 23. On the other hand, the learned District Judge has made it clear that the remand was under Section 151, Civil P. C. Plainly, therefore, the appeal does not lie. Learned counsel for the appellant, while conceding that the appeal is not maintainable, prayed that, in the alternative, it may be treated as a revision. His argument was that the remand was unnecessary and the learned District Judge has not exercised his jurisdiction properly. Heelaborated this argument by pointing out that there was no issue regarding limitation and the grounds of appeal, taken before the lower appellate Court, were silent regarding limitation. Learned counsel argued th...
District Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Khem Chand and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1954HP63
1. This is an appeal by a defendant and it arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiffs-respondents were expelled from membership of the District Co-operative Society Mandi through a resolution passed in the annual meeting held on 22-6-1952. Thereupon, they filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mandi, seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the annual general meeting and their removal from membership were illegal and mala fide and further they still continued as members of the society. The suit was contested on various grounds; inter alia, the society contended that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Rule 18 framed under Section 43, Co-operative Societies Act. The preliminary objection was upheld by the Subordinate Judge, who dismissed the suit. In appeal, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that Rule 18 did not apply to the facts of the case. Consequently, he reversed the order of the Subordinate Judge and remanded ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›