Himachal Pradesh Court December 1956 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.
Chuni Lal Vs. G.M. Nahan Foundry Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-1956
Reported in: AIR1957HP33
Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. In this appeal, by a workman, against the order of the learned Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, awarding a sum of Rs. 110-4-0, as compensation, in his favour, it was urged, that the Commissioner, has erred in not holding, that the appellant has suffered permanent total disablement, due to an occupational disease, contracted by him, during the course of his employment. I was, therefore, requested to direct the respondent, to pay to the appellant, a sum of Rs. 3,360, as compensation, under Schedule IV, read with Section 4 (1) (b) and Section 3 (2) of the Act 2. The facts, as found by the Commissioner, are that the appellant was employed in the moulding section of the Foundry. He fell ill, while working and was unable to perform his duties for a period of three and a half months. Consequently, the Commissioner granted him a sum of Rs. 110-4-0, as compensation, representing half monthly wages, during the appellant's period of absence from his duties....
Nainu and ors. Vs. Kishan Singh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1957HP46
Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. This second appeal by defendants arises out of a suit for redemption. It is common ground, that the property in question was mortgaged by the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs, in favour of Sundar, father of the appellants 1, 2, 3, and 4 and Tulsi appellant 5, on 17th Kartak 1992 Sambat, for a sum of Rs. 1400/. Subsequently on 22-9-49, the plaintiffs purchased the equity of redemption from the original mortgagors for a sum of Rs. 4000/-. Consequently the plaintiffs sought a decree for redemption on payment of the sum of Rs. 1400/- (original mortgage amount) to the defendants-mortgagees. 2. The suit was resisted by the defendants-mortgagees mainly on the ground that the plaintiff had no right to redeem, since the period prescribed in the mortgage deed (10 years) had expired. They, therefore, contended that their (mortgagees') status had matured into that of owners and consequently the suit was bad. In the alternative, it was contended that, they were furthe...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›