Himachal Pradesh Court June 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.
Dawarka Dass Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-04-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1018
ORDERV.P. Gupta, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal P. C. (hereinafter shortly called the Code) read with Artcle 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 397 of the Code, by the petitioner challenging the order passed on 25th February, 1980 upon an application filed under Section 311 of the Code by the petitioner for recalling the prosecution witnesses who had been examined in the case on 14th January, 1980.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was prosecuted under Section 353, I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and he was charge-sheeted for the said offences on 14th May, 1979. The petitioner did not plead guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed to be tried. The Magistrate fixed the case for the evidence of the prosecution for 28th June, 1979. On 28th June, 1979, the whole of the prosecution evidence could not be examined because the counsel for the petitioner stated that he was not feeling well and ...
Bansi Lal Ganpat Rai Vs. Bhoj Raj and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-1980
Reported in: AIR1980HP39
ORDERV.P. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 18th September, 1978, passed by the Rent Controller (III), Simla, by which the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil P. C. filed by the present petitioner was dismissed.2. The brief facts of the case are that the landlord-respondents filed an application for eviction of the tenant-petitioner under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) for eviction of the tenant from the upper and top floors of premises No. 20, and whole of premises No. 21. It was alleged in the eviction petition that both the premises Nos. 20 and 21 are residential as per definition of the residential building given in Section 2 (g) of the Act. Under para 9 of the eviction petition it is averred that the premises are occupied by a single tenant. Under para 14 it is alleged that premises, No. 20, were let out some 30 to 35 years back and in premises No. 21, the tenant was in occ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›