Skip to content

Himachal Pradesh Court January 1955 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.

Jan 12 1955

Mehar Singh Vs. Baldev Singh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-12-1955

ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and it arises under the following circumstances. The petitioner, Mehar Singh, filed an application under Section 4, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as applied to Himachal Pradesh, against the respondent, Baldev Singh, for determination of the fair rent of a stall occupied by him. The Subordinate Judge of Mandi, who performs the functions of a Controller under the Act fixed the rent at Rs. 32/-p. m. Mehar Singh then filed an appeal to the District Judge, who has been appointed as 'Appellate Authority' for the purposes of the Act. The latter held that the appeal was time-barred and, accordingly, rejected the appeal. Since the order of the Appellate Authority is not open to revision, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. His contention is that the Appellate Authority should have disposed of the appeal on its merits and has erred in holding that it was time-barr...


Jan 11 1955

Mt. Rup Devi and anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-11-1955

Reported in: 1955CriLJ679

ORDER32. In view of all that has been said above, I allow appeal No. 14 of 1954, filed by Mt. Rup Devi in part. I set aside her conviction ofan offence under Section 302, read with Section 114, I. P. C, Instead, I convict her of an offence under Section 201, I. P. C., and, bearing in mind that she is only about 18 years of age and in all probability wasled astray by Gokal (who was old enough to be her father), sentence her to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. As regards criminal appeal No. 15 of 1954, filed by Gokal, I maintain his conviction of an offence under Section 302, I. P. C., as well as the sentence of transportation for life inflicted upon him. He should thank his starsthat in spite of the fact that he committed a brutal and premeditated murder, he was let off with the lesser of the two penalties prescribedby law, There was, however, no point in tacking on a fine of Rs. 300/- to the sentence of transportation for life. The sentence of fine is, therefore, set aside. ...


  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial