Himachal Pradesh Court March 1977 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.
Kalyan Singh Vs. Kagdi Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1977
Reported in: AIR1977HP73
ORDERR.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a revision petition directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rohru refusing to transpose the petitioner from the array of defendants to the array of plaintiffs. 2. One Gokal sold a parcel of land to Naratu Ram. A pre-emption suit was filed by Kagdi Ram on the footing that he was co-sharer of Gokal and was, therefore, entitled to pre-empt the sale. Gokal had died before the institution of the suit, and consequently Kagadi Ram impleaded Kalyan Singh, the son of Gokal, as defendant in the suit. Kalyan Singh applied to the trial Court for an order transposing him from the array of defendants to the array of plaintiffs. The application was moved on the basis that he, Kalyan Singh, had a better title to pre-empt the sale than the original plaintiff, Kagadi Ram, and therefore he should be entitled to sue for a decree for possession by pre-emption in his favour. The trial Court rejected his application by an order dated August 1, 1973. Kalyen...
Eastern Commercial Corporation Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1977
Reported in: AIR1977HP74
T.U. Mehta, J.1. By a previous order both these matters are ordered to 'be heard together.2. O.M.P. No. 56 of 1973 arises out of the interim order passed by the arbitrator on 29-3-1973 staying the recovery of the royalty amount of Rs. 44,390.10 till the disposal of the arbitration proceedings between the parties pending before him. The case of the State which has felt aggrieved by this order is that the arbitrator has no jurisdiction to pass such interim order in the pending arbitration proceedings and, therefore, the above referred order of the arbitrator should be quashed under Section 31 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.3. O.M.P. No. 99 of 1973 is also preferred by the State claiming for extension of time under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act. This, prayer of the State for extension of time under Section 2-8 of the Arbitration Act is not resisted by the claimants and should, therefore, be allowed.4. So far as O.M.P. No. 56 of 1973 is concerned, the claimants had raised a prelim...
Jagar Nath and anr. Vs. Shambhu
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: AIR1977HP81
ORDERR.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a defendants' revision petition against an order dated Aug. 23, 1975, made by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Hamirpur closing the defendants' evidence in the suit. 2. A suit for possession through preemption was filed by the respondent against the petitioners. On Aug. 23, 1975, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge made an order that as no witness has been summoned through the court and as the petitioners themselves had not brought the witnesses with them no adjournment could be granted. It appears that a statement was made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the wit-nesses could not be brought because the petitioners were ill. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge, however, observed that the suit had been lingering on for more than six months and three adjournments had already been granted, and therefore in the circumstances no further adjournment was called for. Accordingly, he made the impugned order. 3. A perusal of the order sheet show...
Ram Chand Vs. Smt. Ramku and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1977
Reported in: AIR1977HP82
ORDERR.S. Pathak, C.J.1. These are two revision petitions by the plaintiff arising out of proceedings for grant of interim injunction during the pendency of two suits.2. The petitioner filed two suits against the respondents and during the pendency of the suits .applied for the grant of interim injunction. The trial Court granted the interim injunction in each suit in so far that it declared that the status quo between the parties would continue. Curiously, the petitioner appealed against the order in each case, and thereupon the respondent filed a cross-objection in each appeal. The appeals and the cross-objections came on before the learned District Judge, and by his order dated May 12, 1976 he dismissed the appeals and allowed the cross-abjections, and in the result dismissed the applications for interim injunction.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in these two revision petitions contends that the appeals filed by the petitioner before the learned District Judge were incompetent...
Parkash Chand Vs. the State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1674
ORDERT.U. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner herein has been convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una Under Section 7 of the Prevention of' Ticketless Travelling Act, 1976 read with Rule 4,43(XXI)/ Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has been sentenced by the learned Magistrate to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine he is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The learned Magistrate has also ordered that the Con- ductor's Licence which is held by the petitioner be cancelled for a period of one month Under Section 21-G of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The main point which arises to be determined in this petition is whether the. learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who has tried this case summarily has been properly authorised to hold the trial in a summary way.3. On this question the contention which is raised by the learned Advocate of the petitioner is that Under Section 10 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Ticketless Travel ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›