Himachal Pradesh Court July 1985 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.
Ruli Ram and ors. Vs. Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-1985
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC192
H.S. Thakur, J.1. A complaint under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, was filed by the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Chandigarh in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simla, on December 1, 1981. The learned Magistrate in the order passed on 3-12-1981, observed that after due appraisal of the record of the case sufficient grounds exist to proceed against all the accused for the offences punishable under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act. He ultimately ordered that the accused be summoned. On 23-3-1982, the learned Magistrate, observed that after due appraisal of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and the record of the case, a prima facie case punishable under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act against all the accused was made out. Consequently, he framed charges on 23-3-1982 under the said section against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As such, witnesses were ordered to be summoned.2. The petitioners feeli...
Narender Kumar and ors. Vs. Hans Raj and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-1985
Reported in: AIR1986HP75
ORDERT.R. Handa, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order dated 5-9-1981 recorded by the Sub-Judge, Kullu, in the course of trial of Civil Suit No. 63 of 1977 of his file, vide which the learned Sub Judge disallowed the petitioners-defendants to produce and prove a document at the trial.2. It appears that one of the issues involvedin the suit pending before the Sub Judgebetween the parties was whether the propertyforming subject matter of the suit was thejoint property of the parties or had beenpartitioned between them earlier. The plea ofthe contesting defendants was that it was stilljoint and not partitioned whereas thecontention of the plaintiffs-respondents wasthat the same had already been partitionedand fallen to their share. In order tosubstantiate their plea the petitioners-defendants wanted to produce and prove adocument earlier executed, between the partieswhich, according to them recognized the jointnature of th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›