Himachal Pradesh Court April 1983 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.
Hari Chand Khimta Vs. Karam Chand and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-14-1983
ORDERV.P. Gupta, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order, D/- 31-12-1982, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Simla, in election petition No. 33/3 of 1978. 2. An election of the Pardhan to Gram Panchayat, Mandhol, District Simla, was held on 17-11-1978 under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act). The petitioner and respondent 1 (Shri Karam Chand Azad) were contesting candidates for this election and the petitioner was declared elecled. Respondent 1 challenged the election by filing an election petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Simla, on various grounds and also alleged that the petitioner had committed corrupt practices. 3. The petitioner contested the election petition. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and parties also produced evidence. The Deputy Commissioner, vide his order, D/- 31-12-1982 held that the petitioner had committed corrupt practic...
Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Gurdev Kaur and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1983
V.D. Misra, C.J. 1. The appellant has not deposited the amount in question. Mr. Khanna states that the amount was not deposited because directions were not given by this Court in terms of Order 41 (1) (3), Civil P. C.2. It appears to me that there is a misunderstanding about the ambit of sub-rule (3). This sub-rule finds a place in Rule 1 which relates to the form of appeal and what is to accompany the memorandum of appeal. In other words the appellant is required to comply with the full provisions of Rule 1 before there can be said to be proper appeal before the appellate court. Sub-rule (3), in my opinion, requires the appellant to deposit the money in question before or at least along with the filing of the appeal. It is only when the money has not been so deposited that permission can be had from the court to deposit the money within the time allowed by the court or to furnish the security as the court may think proper. I do except the appellant, which is a public undertaking in th...
Ram Asra Hari Chand Vs. Tara Chand and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-1983
ORDERV.P. Gupta, J. 1. An eviction petition was filed on 11th July, 1978 by Tara Chand Landlord/petitioner) under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) with the Rent Controller, Simla, seeking eviction of M/s. Ram Asra Hari Chand Shopkeepers through Hari Chand proprietor/partner (tenant-respondent No. 1) from Shop No. 2. Vishnu Bhawan, Sanjauli, Simla-6. M/s. Haji Chand Amar Math Halwai were impleaded as respondent No. 2 on the ground that respondent No. 2 was in possession of the premises as a sub-lessee of respondent No. 1 (tenant). In this judgment the landlord will be mentioned as petitioner, tenant as respondent No. 1 and alleged sub-tenant as respondent No. 2. 2. The grounds of eviction were that (a) the tenant/respondent No. 1 was in arrears of rent, and (b) the tenant/respondent No. 1 had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of over twelve months. Other grounds were of subletting and converting the use of t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›