Himachal Pradesh Court August 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.
Lalit Sen Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1984
Reported in: AIR1985HP32
V.P. Gupta, J. 1. Aggrieved from the judgment dt. 26-7-1971 passed in C.W.P. No. 17 of 1969, the appellant has filed the present appeal. The appellant is a landowner in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) was enforced in Himachal Pradesh from 26-1-1955. Under Section 27 of the Act certain landowners were to be divested of their ownership rights and the right, title and interest of these owners in the land was to vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances provided the landowner was holding land with an annual land revenue which exceeded Rs. 125/- per year. Mutations regarding the transfer of ownership rights were to be sanctioned under Section 27 of the Act read with the rules framed under Section 18 of the Act. Two mutations Nos. 1789 and 1790 were attested with respect to the land of the appellant by Tehsildar, Sunder Nagar on 27-6-1963 and 28-6-1963 respectively with t...
Chet Ram and ors. Vs. Sawanu Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1984
Reported in: AIR1985HP97
V.P. Gupta, J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal the appellants are the plaintiffs while the respondents are the defendants in the main suit.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit on 23-7-1964 in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction to the effect that the land of khasra Nos, 2649/314 and 2651/1618 (2 plots) measuring 3 bighas and 14 biswas of Jamabandi 1959-60 in village Mahadev, Tehsil Sunder Nagar is in possession of the parties in equal shares and defendant 1 (Chamaru) be directed to refrain from causing interference in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs in any manner.3. The plaintiffs alleged that the disputed land was government land which was granted to defendant 1 as nautor. The plaintiffs objected to this grant of nautor. A compromise in writing was effected between the parties on 15-12-1954. According to the compromise/agreement, the parties came in possession of the disputed land in equal shares, each party having l/9th sh...
Jagdish Chand Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ696
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. The petitioner, who was at the material time working as Lower Division Clerk, was put up for trial on May 7, 1976, before the General Court Martial (hereinafter referred to as 'the GCM') along with one Des Raj Pathak, who was at the relevant time Commanding Officer-II, for an offence punishable Under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The GCM found the petitioner as well as Des Raj Pathak guilty of the offence with which they were charged. The petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, So far as Des Raj Pathak is concerned, he was sentenced to surfer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 8,000/-. The sentence was announced on June 13, 1976. On October 7,1976, the 3rd respondent (Chief Engineer, Project Deepak, Shimala) confirmed the proceedings of the GCM. While confirming the proceedings, the 3rd respondent remitted the unexpired period of sen...
Bhupinder Singh and Etc. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Etc.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1984
Reported in: AIR1986HP33
ORDERH.S. Thakur, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The substance of the claim of the petitioners is that the tourists carried by them in their tourist vehicles between Shimla and Kalka are not liable to pay the passenger tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the tax') under the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1955'). The petitioners contend that the authorities under 'the Act of 1955' in Himachal Pradesh, are demanding the tax from the petitioners and under the pretext of this demand they are harassing them unnecessarily.3. Mr. M. S. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that by virtue of the notification (Annexure-D1), issued by the Governor of Punjab on Feb. 11, 1960, the tourists travelling in tourist vehicles have been exempted from the payment of the passenger tax. It is desirable to reproduce the ...
ishwar Singh and ors. Vs. Sawaru Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1986HP17
V.P. Gupta, J.1. The plaintiffs (now appellants) filed a suit for possession of 10 kanals-and 5 marlas of land (detailed in the plaint) situate in village Majra, Tehsil Una on the allegations that land measuring 27 kanals and 15 marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 325 and 399 of jamabandi for the year 1882-83 was in the occupancy tenancy of one Labha (predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs). Labha co-opted Jodh Singh (predecessor in interest of the defendants) as a non-occupancy tenant for cultivation purposes. Jodh Singh continued cultivating the land as a non-occupancy tenant. Subsequently his successors in interest/heirs were cultivating the land as non-occupancy tenants and they were assigned separate khasra numbers for cultivation. The dci'endanis continued cultivating the land in dispute as non-occupancy tenants under the plaintiffs. Consolidation look place in the village and during consolidation the defendants got some changes effected in the revenue records with the connivance of th...
Himachal Road Transport Corporation Shimla Vs. Sushila Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1986HP78
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. The case has been listed before us today because the appellant has failed to comply with the following order made in C.M.P. No. 1203 of 1984 :-'The appellant-applicant will deposit the awarded amount together with costs and interest in the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today after deducting from such amount, the amount paid under the Passenger Insurance Scheme as well as the amount, if any, paid by way of interim relief by the appellant-applicant to the claimants (respondents).This order is not to be treated as a precedent for any purpose whatsoever.In view of the order of deposit made as aforesaid, the execution of the award against the appellant-applicant is stayed.To be listed for admission after the deposit is made.'2. The appeal arises out of an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, Kullu, and Lauhal and Spitti Districts, in a claim petition lodged under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Under the impug...
Piar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ860
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. The only submission which was made for our consideration was that the previous sanction of the competent authority, as required by Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, having not been taken before the petitioner was tried and convicted by the General Court-Martial, the proceedings culminating into the conviction of the petitioner were void ab initio. There is no merit in this submission.2. The material part of the charge against the petitioner (Annexure PB) makes it clearthat he was put up for trial before the General Court-Martial for 'committing a civil offence, that is to say, criminal misconduct, contrary to Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947'. The charge, therefore, was that the petitioner had committed a 'civil offence' and the particulars of such civil offence were specified in the words next following. In the margin of the charge-sheet, Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was s...
D.N. Kaul Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985HP39,(1985)IILLJ143HP
P.D. Desai, C.J. 1. The question hereinrelates to the period of limitation governing the payment of difference of salary to the petitioner as a result of the award of Selection Grade with retrospective effect. 2. The formal order awarding the Selection Grade to the petitioner was passed on Dec. 22, 1981, by the Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, in pursuance of the directions of the State Government contained in their letter dt. Sept. 9, 1981. Under the said order, the Selection Grade was awarded to (contd. on col. 2) the petitioner on and with effect from April 1, 1961. Be it stated that even if there was any earlier order awarding the Selection Grade to the petitioner on and with effect from a later date, the said order was displaced by the order dt. Dec. 22,1981, which was passed in order to give effect to the decision of the State Government taken on an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the earlier order. The difference of salary upon being awarded the Selection Grad...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Arjun Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ245
ORDERT.R. Handa, J.1. Sh, Arjun Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused', has been convicted for the offences falling Under Sections 363, 366 and 376, I.P.C by the Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamsala vide his judgment dated 12-1-1982. Subsequently vide his order dated 21-1-1982 the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the said conviction. In terms of the directions of the Sessions Judge the amount of fine was to be paid to the victim of the rape through her father as compensation.2. The accused has filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1982 to challenge his above conviction and sentence. The State has also preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1982 against the above order of sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the accused This Court also took suo motu notice of the sentence imposed on the accused for the offences Un...
Bhagwant Sarup and ors. Vs. Himalaya Gas Co. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1984
Reported in: I(1985)ACC214,AIR1985HP41
V.P. Gupta, J.1. Plaintiff No. 1 (Bhagwant Sarup) was registered as a consumer No. F/487 with defendant 1 (M/s. Himalaya Gas Company) for the supply of cooking gas. A gas connection was installed in his premises known as 141, Malhotra Building, Lower Bazar, Shimla. The cooking gas cylinders used to be supplied by defendant 1 through its trained workmen and servants who used to replace old empty gas cylinder by installing a new gas cylinder. Defendants 2 and 3 (Surinder Kumar and Devinder Kumar) are the partners of the firm defendant No. 1.2. The plaintiffs allege that they had booked replacement of a gas cylinder with defendant 1 on 3/4th June, 1975 because their previous gas cylinder had exhausted. Defendant 1 sent a cooking gas cylinder through defendant 5 (Gulam Mohamad) on 14-6-1975 at about 2.20 p.m. Defendant 5 kept the cylinder in the corridor and asked the plaintiffs to give some instrument for opening the cylinder and got a small axe meant for breaking fire wood and coal etc. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »