Himachal Pradesh Court August 1960 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.
Mt. Kalawati and anr. Vs. Devi Ram and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961HP7
C.B. Capoor, J.C.1. Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 83 of 1960 arises out of a petition filed by the appellant under Sections 10 and 12 and Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 128 of 1959 arises out of a petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. A common preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents to the aforesaid appeals and I propose to dispose of that objection by this order. The objection was 'that the appeals were entertainable by the Court of the District Judge and not by this Court inasmuch as the decrees appealed against were passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge.3. The relevant portion of Section 28 of the aforesaid Act runs as below :'All decrees and orders made by the Court in lany proceeding under this Act shall be enforced in like manner as the decrees and orders of the Courts made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction are enforced, and may be appealed from under any law for the time being in force.'It will...
Bala Dat Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960HP30
ORDERC.B. Capoor, J.C.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issue of writs in the nature of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition quashing the entire proceedings started by the respondents for the realization of Rs. 7000/- and restraining respondents Nos. 2 to 4 from proceeding further, with the realisation of the said amount. The respondents to the petition are (1) Union of India, (2) Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, (3) Collector, Mahasu District, Kasumpti and (4) Conservator of Forests, Simla Circle.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as below:3. Certain Forests were advertised by respondent No. 4 for being sold at auction on 11-2-1958. The auction sale was held on the aforesaid date, and the petitioner in the name of Bala Datt Sharnia and Sons bid for lot No. 3, Compartment No. 1/2 Chanian forest--as to which there is no dispute in this case--and lot No. 4, Compartment No. 2/4 both situate in Junga Ran...
Sohan Lal and anr. Vs. Sant Lal
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960HP28
C.B. Capoor, J.C.1. The interesting question of law that arises for consideration in the second appeal preferred by the defendant is as to the interpretation of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The defendant had preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the Court of the District Judge and the same has been dismissed on the ground of having been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. An oral prayer was made by the defendant-appellant before the learned District Judge for extending to him the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but that prayer was also turned down.2. The judgment of the trial Court was pronounced on 18-8-1958 and on the same day an application for obtaining a copy of the judgment and decree was filed on behalf of the defendant. The copies of judgment and decree were delivered on 26-8-1958. 26-9-1958 was a holiday and the appeal was filed on 27-9-1958.3. The contention advanced on behalf of the defendant-appellant befo...
Kalyan Singh Vs. Baldev Singh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961HP2
ORDERC.B. Capoor, J.C.1. This is a petition by Shri Kalyan Singh under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. At the elections to Territorial Council Himachal Pradesh held in 1957, the petitioner and respondent No. 1, were rival candidates from the Paonta constituency of Sirmur district. The petitioner was declared elected having defeated respondent No. 1 by 1068 votes. Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition, challenging the petitioner's election, and presented it to the Senior Subordinate Judge, Nahan,on 31-8-1957, who transmitted it to the Court of the District Judge which was the authority constituted under the territorial Councils Act for the disposal of an election petition. The District Judge dismissed the petition on the grounds that it was time-barred and that the security was not deposited in accordance with the provisions of Rule 78 of the Territorial Councils (Election of Members) Rules, i957. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition against the order of the D...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›