Himachal Pradesh Court October 1982 Judgments

Hakim and anr. Vs. Santu and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.P. Gupta, J.1. The only point for consideration in this case is as to whether the notification No. 4662, dated 6th March, 1917, issued under Section 8 (2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, is still alive and operative or has been impliedly repealed by substituted and amended Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act No. 10 of 1960. This question has arisen in the following circumstances:--One Dagu sold land measuring 38 kanals 12 marlas with share in Shamilat along with one house (as detailed in the plaint) situate in Tika Jagatkhana Mauza Thara, Tahsil Hamirpur, District Kangra to Santu and others, sons of Asa, respondents (defendants) by a registered sale deed, dated 28-4-1959, for Rs. 6,000.2. Gokal plaintiff (appellants are legal representatives of Gokal plaintiff) filed a suit for possession by pre-emption on the ground that he was an agnate of Dagu vendor, within four degrees and was also a co-sharer in the Khata and for this reason he had a preferential right of ...

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Amar Singh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Vyas Dev Misra, C.J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Regular First Appeals Nos. 16 to 21 of 1973 since they arise out of the same award.2. For the construction of Beas Dam at Pong, extensive areas of land were acquired. Notifications D/- 1-4-1961 and 11-1-1962 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued. Various agricultural lands including the villages themselves were included in the notifications. The claimants duly asked for compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector found that there were no examples and so crop cutting experiments in Haldoon Valley were undertaken. It was calculated that Rs. 1,900/-per kanal was the fair price for the Nehri-Dofasli land. However, after taking into consideration the fact that Rupees 300/- per kanal for Nehri-Dofasli land were offered by the department, the Collector added Rs. l,.000/- to Rupees 300/- and arrived at a mean figure of Rs. 650/- per kanal for Nehri-Dofasli land. This was the amount which was effered to the claimant...

Smt. Bimla Devi Vs. Vir Singh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.D. Misra, C.J.1. This LettersPatent Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge.2. One Saran Dass left behind two widows and two sons. Before his death. Saran Dass made a gift of the property in dispute to his wife Simla Devi. After the death of Saran Dass the sons tiled a suit challenging the gift deed. It was averred by the plaintiffs that the gifted property was ancestral and as such their father Saran Dass could not make a gift of the same. Therefore, they claimed possession of the property in dispute. This suit was resisted. Bimla Devi, the donee, denied that the properly was ancestral. The trial court came to the conclusion that a part of the land in dispute was ancestral whereas the other part was not ancestral Qua the plaintiffs. It also held that according to the customary law by which the parties were governed, the gift made by the deceased in favour of his wife Bimla Devi was valid. The suit was therefore, dismissed. On plaintiffs' appeal the Addition...

Manager, Medico Pharmaceutical Processors Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1983CriLJ67

ORDERVyas Dev Misra, C.J.1. Shri S. N. Sharma, Drugs Inspector Dharamsala, on 27th Feb., 1979 went to the shop of M/s. Best Pharma Corporation, Palampur, pharmaceutical distributors (referred to as the Vendor), and took a sample of chloramphenicol I. P. in accordance with the provision of Section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (the Act). One portion of the sample was given to the Vendor and another was sent to the Government Analyst. The analyst declared the sample as not of standard quality on the ground that it did not conform to I, P. in respect of polymorph-A content. A copy of the report along with the show cause notice was sent to the Vendor. The latter sent an attested copy of the purchase invoice of the drug to the Drugs Inspector. It revealed that the drug in question had been purchased from M/s. Bharat Drug House (referred to as the Distributor). A copy of the report of the analyst as well as a part of the sample was sent to the Distributor. A complaint for contravening Se...

Swamy Bhandari and Etc. Vs. Smt. Shila Sharma

Court: Himachal Pradesh

ORDERV.P. Gupta, J.1. These revision petitions are being disposed of by this single order as they involve common questions of law and facts.2. Sheela Sharma (respondent) is the landlady and Swami Bhandari, Janki Devi and Garib Dass (petitioners) are the - tenants. Three separate applications for the eviction of the petitioners were filed by the respondent, under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) and one of the grounds for eviction was the nonpayment of rent.3. The eviction applications were contested by the tenants (petitioners). The Rent Controller, Simla, vide his order Dt. 8-5-1980, passed orders of eviction of the tenants (petitioners) on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.4. The tenants (petitioners) filed appeals on 6-6-1980. The Appellate Authority passed an order (on 6-6-1980) staying the dispossession of the tenants (petitioners) till further orders subject to the condition that arrears of rent accrued up to date w...

Durga Dass Bansal Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1983CriLJ419

ORDERVyas Dev Misra, C.J.1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Misc. petitions (Main) Nos. 298 and 316 of 1981 as well as 160 of 1982 since common questions of law and fact have arisen.2. The relevant facts are these. The Controller of Stores, Himachal Pradesh, Nigamvihar, Simla, invited tenders for various stores including the rate contract for bleaching powder. The petitioner, who carries on his business under the name and style of M/s. Manak Textile Mills, Delhi, submitted his tender for the supply of bleaching powder. It may be noticed that the petitioner does not deal in chemicals but he undertook to supply the article from the local dealers of 'KCI' manufacturers. It may also be noticed that the article was described as 'trade group-chemical Code No. C-10.' The petitioner had described the article in his tender as 'Bleaching powder Stable DCM of KCI manufacturer conforming to specification No. 1065-1971 (with amendment) in packing of : (i) 50 kgs. G. I. and M. S. Drums, (ii) ...