Himachal Pradesh Court August 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.
The Nalagarh Dehati Co-operative Transport Society Ltd., Nalagarh Vs. ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1980
Reported in: AIR1981HP1
V.D. Misra, C.J.1. The following question has been referred to the Full Bench :'Whether it is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. in any of the following contingencies:(i) Where after a judgment is pronounced by a court, the Supreme Court or a larger bench of the same court renders a decision taking a different or contrary view on a point covered by the said judgment; or(ii) Where the court so pronouncing a judgment has, for whatever reason, missed to take into consideration a decision of the Supreme Court or a High Court taking a different or contrary view on a point covered by the said judgment.'2. Under Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (the 'Act') the respondents raised disputes with the petitioner. These disputes were referred to arbitration. Awards were given against the petitioner. Under Section 63 (a) of the Act the awards could be executed as decrees of a civil court. Applications for execu...
Dalip Singh Vs. Jaisi Ram and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1980
Reported in: AIR1981HP49
T.R. Handa, J. 1. This regular second appeal is from the judgment and decree dated 1-5-1978 passed by the District Judge affirming that of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hamirpur dated 21-2-1977 decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for possession of 21 kanals of agricultural land by way of pre-emption. 2. In order to appreciate the points in controversy between the parties which survive for consideration at this stage, it is considered necessary to narrate a few facts which are not in dispute, 3. The land forming the subject of dispute between the parties was originally owned by one Shri Bhikhoo who died issueless some time in 1928-23. On the death of Shrj. Bhikhoo his widow Smt. Shankari succeeded to that land as a limited owner under the law then in force. Later with the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she acquired absolute and full ownership in this land by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 (1) of this Act with effect from 1-4-1956. After so acquiring ab...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›