Himachal Pradesh Court September 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.
Chamaru Etc. Vs. Khazan Singh Etc.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1977
Reported in: AIR1978HP58
R.S. Pathak, C.J. 1. This is a defendant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arising out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 45.2. The respondent Khazan Singh filed a suit against the petitioner Chamaru before the Nyaya Panchayat for the recovery of Rs. 45. The suit was transferred to another Nyaya Panchayat, which on April 21, 1970 decreed the suit. A revision petition before the learned Sub-Divisional Judge was dismissed on Nov. 23, 1972. The petitioner now applies under Article 227 of the Constitution for relief.3. When the petition came on for hearing, before one of us, a question was raised whether the addition of Clause (5) in Article 227 of the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act had resulted in depriving this Court of its jurisdiction to interfere judicially in respect of judgments and orders of inferior courts. The case was referred to a larger Bench in view of the importance of the question.4. Section 238 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati...
Siri Ram Vs. Pritam Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1978HP30
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment.2. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the premises mentioned in the plaint were let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 18.00 per mensem in the year 1973. On April 16, 1973, the landlord served a notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. Because of his refusal to leave, the plaintiff filed the suit. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground, inter alia, that the notice terminating his tenancy was invalid. The trial court decreed the suit, and an appeal by the defendant has been dismissed by the learned District Judge. And now this second appeal.3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the notice terminating the tenancy is invalid because the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act require that the notice period should terminate with the month of the tenancy, and in this case, it is said, the tenancy month closed on the 8th May ...
Purshotam Dass Vs. Jaishi Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1977
Reported in: AIR1978HP51
T.U. Mehta, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi Camp at Dharamsala in a land reference No. 50 of 1971 made to him under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. By his order under appeal the learned Additional District Judge has apportioned the compensation for acquisition of the land in dispute between the present appellant and the respondent on the basis that the respondent is a non-occupancy tenant over the acquired land. The appellant claims that the respondent is not holding any non-occupancy tenancy right in the land and the whole of the compensation should have been awarded to him without any apportionment. The office took objection as regard the court-fee paid by the appellant in this appeal. The appellant has paid Court-fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 13 (hi) of the Second Schedule attached to the Hima-chal Pradesh Court Fees Act, 8 of 1958. The office objection is that th...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Vishwanath Sud and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-1977
Reported in: AIR1978HP31
Pathak, C.J. 1. This and the connected first appeal are directed against the judgment and order dated Dec. 3, 1974 of our brother Thakur disposing of objections against an arbitration award.2. The appellant Government entered into a contract dated June 20, 1968 with the respondent, Vishwa Nath Sud, a building contractor for the construction of a Farmers' Community Centre at Thanedhar at a cost of Rs. 2,40,000/-. A dispute having arisen between the parties in regard to the execution of the contract, it was referred to the sole arbitration of the Superintending Engineer, Shri R. K. Sarkar, under Clause 25 of the agreement. The contractor filed a claim for Rs. 1,28,000/- before the Arbitrator, and the Government filed a counter-claim. On March 20, 1972 the Arbitrator made his award. The contractor was awarded Rs. 31,932/- and the Government Rupees 21,504/- on their respective claims.3. On application by the contractor, the Arbitrator filed his award in Court. The contractor applied under ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›