Himachal Pradesh Court May 1984 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.
Radha Soami Satsang Beas Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-1984
Reported in: AIR1985HP15
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. Rule. To be heard to-day.2. The learned Advocate General waives service of the Rule on behalf of the respondents.3. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, I860 (Act No. 21 of 1860). The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of three buildings along with the land appurtenant (hereto situate in a locality known as 'Moti Tibba in the town of Dalhousie which falls within the revenue limits of District Chamba. Adjacent to the said property is situate a property belonging to the StateGovernment (first respondent) in which a Government High School is being run since long. In or about Sept. 1981, the petitioner as well as the school authorities made an application to the competent authority under Section 107, Sub-section (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for defining the limits or boundaries between the property owned by the petitioner and that owned by the first responden...
Mangal Chand Vs. Forest Department, Through Divisional Forest Officer
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-1984
Reported in: II(1985)ACC130,(1985)ILLJ369HP
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is preferred by the original claimant (father of the deceased workman) against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rampur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') disallowing the claim to compensation on the ground that the same was time barred.2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant preferred the claim before the learned Commissioner against the State Government (Forest Department) on April 4, 1981 alleging that his son met with death as a result of the injury caused to him by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on 11th September, 1974. The Divisional Forest Officer, Nichar, District Kinnaur, who was served with the notice of the claim, filed a written statement on 20th October, 1982, inter alia, denying the liability and raising the plea of limitation. It appears that the case proceeded...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co., Shimla Vs. Mrs. Chitra Gupta ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1985HP28
H.S. Thakur, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company praying that the liability of the appellant be limited to Rs. 15,000/- only. In order to determine this point, a few facts relevant to the case may he stated. On December 17, 1976, Rajesh Gupta the husband of respondent 1 was travelling in the ill-fated jeep owned by respondents 3 and 4. The deceased was returning from Subathu after attending to some official work there. The deceased was at that time working as Assistant Commissioner at Solan and the ill-fated jeep was requisitioned by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan for the official use of the deceased. The jeep was driven by the driver of respondent 3. The said jeep met with an accident allegedly due to rash and negligent driving. Shri Rajesh Gupta died in the said accident. The claim petition was filed by respondent I against respondents 2 to 4, and the appellant. The Claim Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to respondent 1, besides interest at...
Behari Lal Gupta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1809
ORDERWhereas it is alleged that Sh. Behari Lal Gupta, Accounts Clerk (now Head Clerk) while functioning as Accounts Clerk on or about(1)1969/12/71.And whereas the said acts constitute an offence/offences punishable under section/sections.Case F.I.R. No. 215/73 under Sections 409/120B and 5(2) P.C. Act, 1947 against Sh. Behari Lal Gupta, Accounts Clerk (now Head Clerk) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Acts 45 of 1860) Section 5(2) read with Section 5(i).Case F.I.R. No. 215/73 under. Sections 409/120B and 5(2) P.C. Act 1947 against Sh. Behari Lal Gupta Accounts Clerk (now Head Clerk).Of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act-II of 1947) and whereas, I, Section Rule Shah, Chief Engineer (Projects) H.P.S.E.B.. Shimla-171004. being ' the authority competent to remove the said Sh. Behari Lal Gupta, Accounts Clerk now Head Clerk from office, after fully and carefully examining the material before me in regard to the said allegations and the circumstances of the case consider that the said...
Smt. Leela Devi Vs. Rangila Ram Rao
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-1984
Reported in: AIR1985HP22
ORDERH.S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioner has filed thiselection petition praying that the election of the respondent to the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 64 Gopalpur constituency be declared as void.2. A few facts relevant for the decision of this election petition may be stated It is pointedout in the election petition that a notification dated April 16, 1982 was issued by the Governor of Himachal Pradesh calling upon all Assembly Constituencies of Himachal Pradesh to elect members to represent them in the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly and the Election Commissioner issued a programme of election for that purpose on the same day. The election programme was notified and after the date of withdrawal of names, the petitioner, respondent and some others were left in the field. The petitioner as also the respondent had filed their nomination papers on April 20, 1982. The polling took place on May 19, 1982 and the votes were counted on May 21,1982. Since the respondent secu...
Pradeep Timber Company, Dharampur and anr. Vs. H.P. State Forest Corpo ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-1984
Reported in: AIR1985HP1
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. This case illustrates how public authorities entrusted with discretion in wide terms sometimes act in the exercise of their powers and how such actions give rise to avoidable litigation.2. On Jan. 19, 1984, an auction notice, Annexure PA, was issued by and on behalf of the respondent-Corporation for an open auction of the specified quantity of firewood, pulp-wood and charcoal in eight different lots and it was notified that the auction will be held on Feb. 19, 1984. By a subsequent notice issued on March 3, 1984, Annexure-PB, it was notified that the said auction would be held on March 19, 1984 instead of Feb. 19, 1984.3. The conditions of the auction-sale (Annexure-PC), were duly notified. Amongst the conditions so notified four are material for the present purposes and they might be adverted to. First, the highest bid was liable to be rejected without assigning any reason by- the auctioning/sanctioning authority; secondly, the highest bidder(s) would be required to...
Sunka Ram Vs. Gram Panchayat, Patta and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1986HP63
ORDERP.D. Desai, C.J.1. The third respondent appears to have lodged a complaint before the first respondent-Panchayat alleging that the petitioner and another person (hereinafter to be compendiously referred as 'the petitioner') had encroached upon and were causing obstruction in the use of a public street/path. Upon receipt of the complaint, the petitioner appears to have been summoned before the Panchayat. Besides, the Panchayat appears to have visited the spot and recorded statements of two witnesses. Having been satisfied about the existence of the encroachment/ obstruction, the Panchayat made a conditional order on April 21, 1983, under Section 19(1)(a) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'theAct') requiring the petitioner to clear the encroachment within a period of 15 days and if the petitioner had any objection so to do, to appear before it on May 7, 1983 and to move to have the order set aside or duly modified. According to the fi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›