Himachal Pradesh Court May 1957 Judgments

Mandi Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Administration and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

ORDER(20) The appeal is allowed to this limited extent that the plaintiffs-appellants will be liable to pay only one half of the costs of the defendants-respondents in the trial Court. In other respects, the appeal is rejected. The order, dismissing the suit, will stand. As regards the costs of appeal, my order is that the appellants will pay one hall of the respondents' costs here....

Mt. Nokhi Vs. Tehru

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1957HP65

1. Mt. Nokhi presented a petition under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the dissolution of her marriage with Tehru, respondent, on the ground that he had another wife, named Mt. Nirmi, and further that he used to ill-treat her.2. Both the allegations were denied byTehru.3. The trial Court (Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi) came to the conclusion that Mt. Nirmi's marriage with Tehru had not been proved. He further found that although previously Tehru had illicit connection with Mt. Nirmi, the same ceased some two years prior to the filing of the petition. Consequently he dismissed the petition for divorce. Hence, this appeal.4. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard yesterday. For reasons to be stated shortly, I am of the opinion that this appeal must be allowed. I may point out that Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, consists of two parts. The first part enumerates as many as nine grounds. On the proof of any ofthese grounds either party to marriage, i....

Nokhu and ors. Vs. Gokal and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1957HP59

ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the order under revision cannot be upheld.2. The Court below has refused to go into the question as to whether the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act on the following two grounds:(a) The plaint did not disclose that the suit had been filed on behalf of a firm. (b) No objection was taken in the written statement that the suit was barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued--and in my opinion with great justification--that the mandatory provisions of Section 69, Partnership Act, could not be defeated on either of the above two grounds. Reliance was placed by him on the following authorities Lokramdas Chatomal v. Tharumal Shewaram, AIR 1939 Sind 206 (A). There, a Division Bench of that Chief Court observed that:'Section 69 prevents a Court from taking cognizance of a suit brought by...