Himachal Pradesh Court June 1954 Judgments

Amar Nath and anr. Vs. Jai Dayal and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, wherein I am requested to set aside the order of the District Judge, Mahasu, acting as the appellate authority under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, as applied to Himachal Pradesh. This petition arises under the following circumstances.The petitioner applied to the Rent Controller, Solan, for the ejectment of the respondents on the ground that they had failed to pay the rent for the year 1950-51. Before the Controller the respondents contended, not only that they had paid the rent in question, but they had made an excess payment of Rs. 118/-. The Rent Controller found against the petitioner and, accordingly, dismissed the application. Then, there was an appeal by the petitioner to the learned District Judge of Mahasu, who is the appellate authority under Section 15. The latter concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller to the effect that the rent for 1950-51 had not fallen into arrears and, ...

Pamma Ram Vs. Chet Ram and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1954HP82

Ramabhadran, J.C.1. This is a workman's appeal under Section 30, Workmen's Compensation Act, against an order of compensation passed by the Commissioner for Workmmen's Compensation, Mahasu. The appellant was employed as a labourer on the-Hindustan-Tibet Road, near Theog. He was employed by a contractor, named Chet Ram, who-was working on behalf of the State P. W. D. As a result of rock burst, the appellant was severely injured and lost the vision of both eyes.The learned Commissioner found that the Hima-chal Pradesh P. W. D. was the principal employer and they were liable to pay compensation. The Commissioner's rinding is that the appellant was earning Rs. 27- per day. In conformity with Schedule IV of the Act, he awarded the workman appellant a sum of Rs. 2,520/- as compensation.2. In appeal, it was argued by learned counsel that the finding of the Commissioner on this point was erroneous. It is contended that the appellant was earning Rs. 3/4/- per day and as such he should have been...

Kanahaya and ors. Vs. Kundan and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1954HP81

Ramabhadran, J.C.1. This is a petition for grant of certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of my learned predecessor in Civil Revision 58 of 1952.2. Kanhaya (who is the petitioner before me) and three others filed a suit against Kundan and others seeking a perpetual injunction restraining Kundan from officiating as Pujari of Devta Bha-tindlu and to restrain the other defendant from permitting Kundan to work as Pujari and to restrain all of them from interfering with the plaintiffs' rights as Pujari. The Senior Subordinate Judge granted a decree which was affirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge. Then, there was a revision petition to this Court, which was disposed of by my learned predecessor on 29-4-1953. My learned predecessor set aside the decrees of the two Courts below and gave declaration that the plaintiffs and Daulat Ram, defendant, wereentitled to hold the office of Pujari jointly with Kundan.Kanahya and the remaining plaintiffs now seek a cert...

Sohanlal Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1954HP83

Ramabhadran, J.C.1. The appellant has been convicted by the Special Judge, Mahasu, of an offence under Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. This appeal was forwarded to this Court through the Superintendent of the jail at Solan. On 2-6-1954, an application was received in the office from the appellant to the effect that he wished to withdraw the appeal. Since the application was sent through post, it was not entertained and was returned to him in accordance with the Rules and Orders of this Court. Once a criminal appeal is filed and admitted, it cannot be withdrawn and has to be disposed of on its merits. I am supported in this view by a Pull Bench ruling of the Lahore High Court, reported in--'Emperor v. Ghulam Mohammad', AIR 1942 Lah 296 (A). There, it was held as follows: 'The Legislature have never contemplated any withdrawal of an appeal once lodged, whether by the accused or by the Crown and once the appeal has be...