Himachal Pradesh Court June 1966 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.
Laiqram Vs. Agar Das
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1967HP29
ORDEROm Parkash, J.C. 1. The only question, which requires decision in this revision-petition, against a decree of the learned District Judge, Mahasu, is whether the petitioner was barred from calling in question the admissibility of the document, in suit, on the ground that it was a promissory note and was not duly stamped and whether the document, in fact, is a promissory note. The question has arisen in the following circumstances: The respondent had instituted a suit, against the petitioner, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Rohru, for the recovery of Rs. 1028.50 nP. principal and interest, on the allegation that the petitioner had, on 9-4-61, borrowed a sum of Rs. 828.50 P, from the respondent, and had executed a promissory note undertaking to pay back the amount, with interest at the rate of Re. 1 per cent, per mensem and that the petitioner had failed to pay back the amount, despite demands. The suit was filed on 7-5-63. The petitioner was summoned for 17-7-63. The Presidin...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Rajkumar Rajinder Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967HP1
ORDEROm Parkash, J.C.1. This revision-petition, against an order of the learned District Judge, Mahasu, raises an important question of law, with respect to the appointment of recognized agents, on behalf of the Central Government, for purposes of signing and verifying plaints and written-statements, and acting in suits, instituted, against that Government in Himachal Pradesh, a Union territory. The determination of the question involves the consideration of Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and of the following two notifications :(1) Government of India, Ministry of Law, Notification No. S. R. O. 282 dated the 21st January, 1958. 'In pursuance of Clause (1) of Article 239 of the Constitution and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Law, No. S. R. O. 699, dated the 8th April. 1953, the President hereby directs that the functions assigned to the Central Government by Order XXVII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure 19...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›