Himachal Pradesh Court May 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.
Gurbaksh Singh Vs. Smt. Taran Jit
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-31-1977
Reported in: AIR1977HP66
Chet Ram Thakur, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Gurbaksh Singh against the order, dated 9th February, 1977, passed by the District Judge, Mandi, allowing the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (shortly called the Act) made by his wife Smt. Taran Jit for grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings consequent to application under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. The learned District Judge while allowing the application under Section 24 granted a sum of Rs. 50 (sic--Rs. 150?) per mensem from August 1972 to February 1975 and thereafter a sum of Rs. 235 per mensem till the date of disposal of the petition under Section 13 of the Act.2. A preliminary point has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the amendment made in the Act by Act No. 68 of 1976. According to him, Section 28 as amended by the Act does not provide for an appeal against the o...
Kuldip Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1848
ORDERChet Ram Thakur, J.1. This petition Under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Cr. P. C., read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 13-7-1976 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kangra, in proceedings Under Section 145, Cr. P. C. initiated by Rosfaan Lal and three others (the second party) against Kuldip Singh and three others (the first party). According to the application which was filed before the police the first party, i. e. Roshan Lal and others who allege themselves the tenants of the land had sown paddy crop in the land khasra No. 160 situate in Mahal Maner, Tehsil Kangra and that Kuldip Singh and others who are the owners were trying to take unlawful possession by showing threats and, therefore, according to Roshan Lal and others there was an imminent danger of breach of peace. The learned Magistrate made a preliminary order on 26-6-1976 and directed the 'parties to show cause and put in written statements relating to the fa...
L.D. Khanna and ors. Vs. Chohan Huhtamaki (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1530
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This appeal Under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is directed against an order of our brother Chet Ram Thakur J. declining to discharge the notice issued by him on a motion made by the respondents for initiating contempt proceedings against the appellants.2. The State Bank of Patiala filed a suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs. 20,32,004.57 p. The plaintiff made an application Under Order 38, Rule 5 and Order 39, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Civil R C. On Jan. 14, 1976 our learned brother Chet Ram Thakur J. granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from disposing of the property during the pendency of the suit and also directed them to furnish adequate security in order to satisfy such decree as may ultimately be passed. He directed notice to issue to the defendants to show cause why the interim injunction be not confirmed and why they should not furnish security. It appears that in purported compliance with his order...
Nand Kishore Vs. Kishan Chand and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1977HP68
R.S. Pathak, C.J. 1. This defendant's revision petition is directed against an order of the trial court admitting a document on the record.2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has raised the objection that the order of the trial court does not constitute a case decided. I am entirely in agreement. The trial Court has merely held that the document, according to the construction placed on it, is not a deed of partition and therefore does not require registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. In coming to this finding, it has disposed of only one issue. A perusal of the issues, of which there are as many as ten, indicates that the document has been challenged on several other grounds, each one of which, if successful, is sufficient to destroy it as a basis of the suit. The entire argument of learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the document is central to the decision of the suit and that by the impugned order the principal defence set up...
Pardhana Vs. AmIn Chand and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1977HP94
ORDERR.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This revision petition by the defendants is directed against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Hamirpur, allowing a substitution application.2. A suit was brought by one Smt. Ambo for a declaration that she was the owner of the property possessed by her and that the gift executed by her on February 3, 1969 was vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and, therefore, should be set aside. During the pendency of the suit Smt. Ambo died. An application was made by her daughter's sons praying that they be substituted as legal representatives. By an order dated February 27, 1976, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Hamirpur, has held that on the death of Smt Ambo the right to sue survives to her legal representatives, and accordingly he has directed their substitution in place of the deceased,3. By this revision petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of that order.4. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the right to sue fo...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›