Himachal Pradesh Court June 1972 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.
Director, Indian Agricultural Research Institute and anr. Vs. Vidya Sa ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973HP29
ORDERR.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and arises out of proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.The respondent. Vidya Sagar. is employed as a Mali with the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, He applied under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. claiming a sum of Rs. 2,230/- as overtime pay. The application was resisted on the ground, inter alia, that it was barred by time. The Authority, hearing the appliaction, held that although, the application was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in making it. Against that order the petitioner applies under Section 115 of the Code.2. The learned Advocate General, appearing for the applicants before me urges that the respondent's application was clearly barred by time and the Au-thority acted without jurisdiction in condoning the delay and holding the application to be within time. It seems to me that if t...
Sunder Vs. Kirpu and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1972HP144
R.S. Pathak, C.J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for possession by redemption.2. The trial court passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the amount due to the defendants on account of a mortgage was Rs. 470/- and made an order for delivery of possession on payment of that sum, An appeal was filed by the defendants, and the appeal has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. Against that decree the present appeal has been preferred.3. At the outset, learned counsel lor the respondents has raised a preliminary objection. He urges that the appeal is not maintainable because the decree under appeal is a decree affirming the trial court decree and, therefore, the appeal does not lie under paragraph32 (1) (b) (i) of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948, and inasmuch as the value of the suit is less than Rupees 1,000/- and the decree under appeal does not involve directly any claim to, or question respecting, property of the value ...
Shyam Singh Vs. Hira Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1972HP135
R.S. Pathak, C.J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for possession by redemption.2. Sohanu filed a suit alleging that he executed mortgage with possession in 1943 in favour of Hiru for Rupees 300/- and thereafter executed another mortgage in 1944 in favour of the same mortgagee for Rs. 800/-, that the amount had been realised by the mortgagee from the land and that therefore he was en-titled to redeem the properties. The suit was contested by the defendant, Shyam Singh, on the ground that he was a tenant in possession from Hiru and was not liable to be ejected. The trial court held that the mortgages had not been proved, that Shyam Singh was not a tenant of the plaintiff but a mere trespasser, and it decreed the suit on the basis of the plaintiff's title. Shyam Singh appealed to the learned District Judge, and the appeal was allowed and the case remanded to the trial court on the finding that the suit had not been brought on the basis of title, that in fact the land...
Bala Ram Vs. Amar Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973HP13
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of H. R. Khanna, J. in a suit for possession.2. The plaintiff alleged that he was a collateral of Hoshiaru. husband of Gori, who had sold the land in suit on November 30, 1961 to the defendants for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 1,700/-. The plaintiff sought to enforce a right of pre-emption against the vendees who were strangers. The suit was contested on a number of grounds, including the ground that the plaintiff had waived his right of pre-emption. The plea of waiver was founded on two allegations. It was alleged, firstly, that the plaintiff had taken active part in the negotiations for sale and. secondly, that a partition of the land sold had taken place by consent between the plaintiff and the vendees. The trial court rejected the former allegation and held as to the latter that it did not amount to a waiver. Finding that the plaintiff had a right of pre-emption and that the right had not been waived....
Sohan Singh and Co. Vs. Mohammad Aishak Tyagi
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1973HP39
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. Mohammad Aishak Tyagi has filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Bilaspur, for recovery of Rs. 13,390/- against M/s. Sohan Singh & Co. Government Contractors, and the allegation is. that the plaintiff is entitled to that amount on account of labour charges because the defendant engaged him to procure labour in connection with his contract for the construction of Court buildings at Bilaspur. The defendant put forward preliminary objections that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit because the defendant was liable to pay the labour charges direct to the labourers and the plaintiff had nothing to do with such payment and that the plaintiff himself had filed an application before the Labour Inspector and the proceedings being pending there, could not be agitated by filing a regular suit in Civil Court. On these two legal pleas which were preliminary in nature, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge framed two specific issues: one on the l...
Mahadev Bajri Co. and ors. Vs. Kesho Dass and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973HP42
D.B. Lal, J. 1. Although the pre-sent proceedings have been submitted to Court in the nature of second appeal, yet the learned counsel agree that the present proceedings are. in fact, invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners are M/s. Mahadev Bajri Company and others, and their contentions are that they were defendants in a suit filed by respondents Kesho Dass and Onkar Nath for the relief of permanent injunction relating to a land, in all measuring 2070 kanals 6 marlas, which is stated to be under lease with, the plaintiff-respondents from the proprietors of village Mohtli. Tehsil Nur-pur of the District of Kangra. The plaintiff-respondents asserted that they were in peaceful possession over the land and the lease related to. extraction of bairi. stones and sand etc. from the land, including a right of passage which was conferred upon them exclusively and this passage, they have further protected by setting up a barrier. Ac-cording to plaintiffs, the defendant-pe...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›