Himachal Pradesh Court November 1980 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 Mehta Vs. the Kailash District Co-operative Marketing and S ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1981HP23
ORDERH.S. Thakur, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of re-spondent No. 3 (Annexure B to the writ petition). The relevant facts to determine this writ petition may. be stated.2. In the writ petition it is stated by the petitioner that 21! bags of potato seeds (up to-date A-I type) at the rate of Rs. 86 per bag, and 5 bags of Dhankhri type at the rate of Rs. 56 per bag, were sold to respondent No. 1, during the year 1965. The sale is stated to have taken place on 24/25-11-1965 24/25-11-1965 at the village of the petitioner. It is further stated that at the time of the sale, the above rates were agreed to and minimum price assured was Rs. 50 per bag. It is admitted by the petitioner that Rs. 10,000 were paid to him at the time of sale and the remaining price was to be paid after the potatoes were sold in the market. It is further asserted that calculating the price of these bags of potatoes at the rates mentioned above, a sum o Rs. 8,578, after adjusting ...
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. R.K. Garg
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ239
V.D. Misra, C.J.1. There is a court of Senior Sub Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate at Solan. It is presided over by Shri Kuldip Chand Sud (referred to as the Judge). On June 18. 1980 he was holding his court as usual. One of the cases fixed for that day was rent petition No. 18/2 of 1980, Jagan Nath v. Khushi Ram. The petitioner was represented by R.K. Garg, Advocate. When the case was taken up for hearing by the Senior Sub-Judge, he noticed that the petitioner had failed to file the process fee and so the summons were not issued for the respondent. The respondent was not, therefore, served. He was not present in the court. The Judge proceeded to dismiss, the petition under Order 9. Rule 2 of the Civil P.C.2. Now there was nothing wrong with the Judge dismissing the petition. But what happened thereafter was shocking indeed. The present respondent hurled his shoe at the Judge. It hit the Judge on his left shoulder and landed on the dais. The Judge directed his orderly to take the re...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›