Himachal Pradesh Court June 1976 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.
Narsingh Dass Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1977HP84
ORDERR.S. Pathak, C.J. 1. The petitioner occupied a stall situated in the Anaj Mandi, Simla. A notice dated April 23, 1973 was served on him by the Municipal Corporation of Simla, respondent No. 2, declaring that he had without authority constructed a shed on land which belonged either to the Government or to the Municipal Corporation and he was required to demolish the stall. He was warned that on his failure to do so it would be demolished by the Municipal Corporation. Thereafter on November 20, 1973 the Municipal Corporation applied to the Collector of Simla for eviction proceedings against the petitioner under Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises andLand (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, In the eviction proceedings the petitioner contended that he had not encroached upon any land belonging to the Corporation and that the land in question had been in his possession for many years. The parties led evidence before the Collector, in the course of which the Municipal ...
Smt. Bal Kaur Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1928
D.B. Lal, J.1. Lavinder Singh, Ajaib Singh and Rattan Singh were prosecuted before the Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the I, P. Code. The case against them was that they brought the deceased a lady, in a oar No. HRK-5379 somewhere near Barog and committed her murder Some evidence was adduced that the three accused were seen near the car on the road a little before the actual murder was committed, that the lady was also brought to a hotel at Pinjore in the very same car, that some petrol was taken for the car at Ambala, and that false number plates were affixed by the accused in that car. After a trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Rattan Singh was acquitted, but Lavinder Singh was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 while Ajaib Singh was convicted only under Section 201 of the I. P. Code. Both of them came in appeal before the High Court, and under its judgment dated 2-8-1972 Lavinder Singh was acquitted for the offence under Section 302 although hi...
Smt. Lila Wati and ors. Vs. Paras Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977HP1
C.R. Thakur, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by Smt. Lila Wati widow of Duni Chand and her sons and daughters against Paras Ram and his sons for possession of the lower flat of house situate in Chowk Bazar, Solan, and for recovery of Rs. 900/- on account of use and occupation and future mesne profits. In order to appreciate the facts of the case it will be better to give the pedigree-table of the parties and which is as under: BHUJA MAL | ------------------------------------- | | | Sawan Ram Munshi Ram Paras Ram (died isssueless) | (Defdt. No1 I) Duni Chand | | | ---------- | Saroj, Krishna, Usha | Surendara (Daughters) | Anil Kumar, Lalit Kumar'(sons)| Lila Wati (Window) | | --------------------------- | | Basheshar Nath Som Nath (Defdt. No.3) (Defdt. No.2)Till 1937 according to the plaintiffs the three brothers, Sawan Ram, Munshi Ram and Paras Ram constituted a joint Hindu family and in that year a partition was effected between these three brothers and a mutation ...
Devi Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ109
D.B. Lal, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution and arises in this way. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Code started against Devi Ram and eight others. They appeared before the Magistrate on 18-12-1975 and after perusing the Police report and papers connected therewith a preliminary order was made by the Magistrate under Section 111 on the same day. In that order he issued notice to them to show cause why they should not be bound down for one year and the amount fixed in the bond was Rs. 2,000/-. Thereafter the order of the Magistrate gives an interesting reading. The Sub-Inspector (Police) who was present prayed that pending the enquiry under Section 116 it was necessary that immediate measures be taken for the prevention of a breach of peace. On that statement of the Sub-Inspector, the Magistrate on the very same day made the peremptory order that pending the enquiry the petitioners be bound down...
Rajkumar Rajindra Singh Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1976HP82
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. The petitioners in this and the connected writ petitions challenge the validity of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and the proceedings taken thereunder.2. It may be mentioned that after a preliminary hearing of the writ petitions we found it desirable, in view of the nature of the questions raised before us, that learned counsel for the parties should file a written statement of their submissions and learned counsel were informed that during the oral hearing of the writ petitions they would be confined to the points set out in their respective statements. Written statements of submissions have been filed by Shri R.N. Malhotra, Shri H.S. Thakur and Shri K.D. Sud and they have orally argued their case on that basis. Learned counsel for the remaining petitioners have adopted the submissions so made.3. The Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter-referred to as 'the impugned Act') was passed by the Himachal Pradesh Legisla...
Dharam Vir Kapur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1976HP93
D.B. Lal, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 arises from the decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasu. The appellant Dharamvir Kapur along with his companion Madan Gopal was coming in a car No. CH161 on 4-1-1969 from Chandigarh and was proceeding to Subathu where he had taken a contract for laying out water pipe line to the Cantonment area. While this car was negotiating a curve at a distance of four miles from Dharampur, it was met with a bus HIL 3661 belonging to the Himachal Government Transport. According to the appellant the bus was coming at a high speed and dashed against the car as the driver (respondent No. 2) due to negligence, failed to apply the brakes. The car of the appellant was towards its left side and he had gone to the extreme limit hardly two feet away from the hill. Still the bus collided against the car and not only damaged the car but also caused injuries to the appellant.Firstly the appellant was brought to the ci...
Ran Singh Vs. Sagar Chand
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1977HP21
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a revision petition against an order of the Appellate Authority, Kangra affirming the order of the Controller directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises to the respondent.2. The respondent landlord applied under Section 13 (3) (i) (iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for possession of the premises let out to the petitioner. The application was based on several grounds one of them being that the respondent bona fide required the premises for his own occupation. The Controller ruled in favour of the respondent, and allowing the application directed the petitioner to put the respondent in vacant possession of the premises by January 15, 1974. An appeal by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority on September 16, 19763. In this revision petition, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that by accepting rent after serving the notice tc quit the respondent must be deemed to have waived the notice. Reliance ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›