Himachal Pradesh Court January 1963 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. Jabbi
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964HP14
C.B. Capoor, J.C. 1. This appeal and Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 16 of 1961 have been made by the Union of India and the same question of law arises in both of them and in order to facilitate matters I propose to deal with them together.2. The respondent to this appeal and the respondent to the other appeal filed separate applications under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act', for the acquisition of proprietary rights in the land held by them as tenants.3. The applications were directed against the Union of India and the main pleas in defence put forward were that the respondents were not tenants, that no relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the parties, that the disputed land formed part of the protected forest under the Indian Forest Act 1927 and that in any case proprietary rights could not be granted in respect of the trees. Those objections did not find favour wi...
Bala Nand and anr. Vs. Devki Nand and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1963HP30
ORDERC.B. Capoor, J.C.1. This application in revision by Bala Nand and Ram Nath is directed against an order of Shri Prem Lal Sharma Subordinate Judge Theog whereby the order dismissing the suit filed by the respondents against the petitioners and some others was set aside and the suit was restored to its original number. 2. The respondents had filed a suit against the petitioners and some others. The case was adjourned to 18-6-62 at the request of the plaintiffrespondents in order to enable them to take steps and file process fee to get service effected on someof the defendants. On the aforesaid date the plaintiff respondents did not take the requisite steps and the learned Sub-Judge dismissed the suit under Order 17, Rule 3 of C. P. C. Thereafter an application purporting to be under Order 9, Rules 4 and 9) of the C. P. C. was filed on behalf of the plaintiff respondents praying for the setting aside of the order of dismissal. Notice of this application was not issued to the petition...
Shankar Dass Vs. Mahu Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1963HP32,1963CriLJ371
ORDERC.B. Capoor, J.C.1. This reference has been made by the learned Sessions Judge Mahasu recommending that the order made by the learned Magistrate Second Class Kotkhai discharging the respondentsof an offence under Section 448 read with Section 109 of I. P. C. be vacated. 2. A complaint had been filed against respondents by Shankar Dass for an offence under Section 448 read with Section 109 of I. P. C. in the Court of Magistrate Second Class Kotkhai. On 5-4-1962 the complainant was absent and on that ground the learned Magistrate discharged the respondents in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 259 of Cr. P. C. An application in revision against thatorder was filed before the learned Sessions Judge on the grounds that the order of discharge was illegal and the complainant was present outside the Court room throughout the day but the case was not called on for hearing. While the Sessions Judge did not accept the complainant's version as to his being present he was of the opin...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›