Himachal Pradesh Court June 1978 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.
Sher Singh and ors. Vs. Paras Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1979HP39
T.U. Mehta, Ag. C.J.1. This L.P. A. arises out of the judgment recorded by a single Judge of this Court in Execution Second Appeal No. 1 of 1973. Short facts of the case are that the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are respectively Paras Ram, Krishan Dayal and Dharmu and who are the sons of one Ram Ditta, had filed a suit for possession against appellant No. 2 Tulsi, respondent No. 4 Mst. Maro and respondent No. 5 Nanku the son of Lehnu, The dispute in that suit was as regards title to the property arising out of inheritance. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 succeeded in obtaining a decree for possession in their favour. This decree was subsequently sought to be executed, but at the time of the execution it was found that the present appellants, except Tulsi, and respondents Nos. 6 to 10, were also in possession of certain parcels of the land in dispute. The decree-holders, therefore, joined even these persons as judgment-debtors on the allegation that they were inducted in the land by the...
Himachal Flour Mills Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-12-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC91(HP)
Mehta, AG. C.J.1. The petitioner herein is Himachal Pradesh Flour Mills, Kangra. It owns a roller flour mill and is manufacturing, inter alia, wheat flour. The grievance made by the petitioner in this writ petition is that on account of the declaration of wheat as article of special importance in inter-State trade under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, the said article does not earn deduction under Sub-clause (ii) of Section 6(3) of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968. The contention of the petitioner is that by the declaration of wheat as declared goods under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, Schedule D, which is attached to the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, stands automatically amended with the result that deduction which was contemplated by Clause (ii) of Section 6(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Act is lost to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, therefore, this automatic addition of an article in Schedule D results in abdication of the legi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›