Himachal Pradesh Court November 1964 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.
Dasu Ram Brij Lal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965HP47
Om Parkash, J.C.1. This is a writ-petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issue of writs of mandamus. The petition has been filed, jointly, by nine petitioners. Every one of them owned a private carrier motor vehicle. The Assessing Authority, Mandi District, respondent No. 4, issued a notice of demand, to each petitioner, directing him to pay a sum specified in the notice, as tax, with respect to the goods, transported in his motor vehicle. The tax was levied, under Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the Rules, framed thereunder.2. The nine petitioners have filed the present petition, challenging their liability to pay tax and the validity of notices of demand. The ground urged, in the petition is, that the petitioners were plying their motor vehicles for the carriage of their own goods and not for hire and that tax could not be levied for those goods, under Section 3 of the Act, ...
Beant Singh Vs. Natha Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1966HP48
ORDEROm Parkash, J.1. This revision-petition is directed against a decree of the learned District Judge, Sirmur, whereby, the suit of the petitioner, for the recovery of Rs. 326.12 P, as mesne profits of land, measuring 12 bighas and 15 biswas, was dismissed. The suit was founded on the allegations that the land was owned and possessed by the petitioner, that he had prepared the land for sowing Rabbi crop for 1961, but that the respondent had taken forcible possession of, and had sown the Rabbi crop for 1961, in, the land and had also, illegally harvested that crop 2. The respondent denied that he had taken forcible possession of the land or had illegally harvested Rabbi crop for 1961. His plea was that the land was evacuee property and had been allotted to Udho Dass, who had leased out the land to the respondent, and that he had been cultivating the land, as a tenant, upto Rabbi 1961. The respondent, further, pleaded that the land was allotted to the petitioner as a result of the sche...
Mata Ram and ors. Vs. Inder Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1966HP58
Om Prakash, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an appellate order of the learned District Judge, Sirmur, whereby, an appeal, against the order of the learned Compensation Officer Sirmur, was dismissed.2. Chuhra, the father of the appellants, had made an application, under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act), for the acquisition of proprietary rights, in the land, owned by the respondent, on the allegation, that he was a tenant of the land.3. The application was contested by the respondent on various grounds. The only ground, which is relevant, for the decision of this appeal, was that trees, belonging to the respondent, were standing on the land, and he was entitled to get compensation for those, in addition to the compensation, payable, for the land.4. Chuhra died during the pendency of the application. The appellants were brought on record as his legal representatives.5. The learned...
Rai Singh and anr. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1965HP49,1965CriLJ499
Om Parkash, J.C.1. Two brothers, Rai Singh, appellant, in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1983 and Gunia, appellant, in Criminal Appeal No. SO of 1963, were convicted and sentenced, under section 304, Part II, I. P. C., read with section 34, I. P. C., by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmur, for causing the death of Mohta. The prosecution case against the appellants was as follows :2. The fields of the appellants adjoined thefields of Mohta; the fields of the appellant, being onthe upper side, and those of Mohta, being on thelower side. On the 30th August, 1962, Mohta wasdigging his field, known as That, just below the boundary line of the field of the appellants. Budhi Singh P. W. 2 and his sister, Smt. Bare, grandson and grand-daughter of Mohta, were hoeing the mash crop, growing in That field. At about 5-30 P. M., the appellants called out to Mohta, from a place known as Dangi-ki-Pand as to why he was digging their field. Mohta had replied that he was not digging the field of the appellant ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›