Himachal Pradesh Court April 1959 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kedareshwar
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1959HP32
T. Ramabhadran, J.C.1. This appeal had come up before this Court on an earlier occasion, when, for reasons stated in this Court's order dated 29-11-1958, four issues were remitted to the learned District Judge of Mandi for investigation and report under Order 41, Rule 25, read with Order 42 Rule 1, Civil P. C. The findings of the District Judge have since been received. No written objections thereto were filed by either side, although when further arguments were heard in the appeal, learned counsel for the parties, in addition to supporting the findings that went in their favour, attempted to demonstrate that the findings which went against them could not be sustained. After that judgment was reserved, I now proceed to deliver judgment.2. For reasons to be stated shortly, I have come to the conclusion that this second appeal must fail.3. I shall refer to the various points that were argued before me, seriatim.4. (A) The first point to be considered is: What was the status of the perman...
Sawan Ram and ors. Vs. Guman Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-14-1959
Reported in: AIR1959HP25
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C. 1. These three petitions, purporting to be under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, arise out of the elections, from Sirmur district to Himachal Pradesh Territorial Council, which took place in May/June, 1957. The petitioners were candidates at the election, but were declared unsuccessful Subsequently, they filed election petitions under Section 13 of the Territorial Councils Act, 1956, challenging the election of the successful candidates, on various grounds. Preliminary objections were raised by the successful candidates (who figure as respondents here) disputing the competency of the election petitions. The learned District Judge of Sirmur, who was trying the election petitions, upheld two of the preliminary objections, raised by the respondents and dismissed the petitions holding that: (a) the etection petitions were time-barred and (b) the petitioners failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 78 of the Territorial Councils (Election of Members) R...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›