Himachal Pradesh Court May 1987 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.
Kinkri Devi and anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-29-1987
Reported in: AIR1988HP4
P.D. Desai. C.J.1. The petitioners havehave instituted the present petition seeking the reliefs, inter alia, that the mining lease for the excavation of limestone from Khasra No. 2107/1979/1 situate in village Sangrah, Tehsil Renuka, District Sirmaur, granted in favour of the third respondent by the first respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh) be ordered to be cancelled, that the third respondent be restrained from operating the mines covered by the lease in such a manner as to pose danger to the adjoining lands, water resources, pastures, forests, wildlife,ecology, environment and inhabitants of the illaqua, that a Commission be appointed to assess the damage caused to the environment, ecology, natural resources, inhabitants of the illaqua and the right-holders of village Sangrah as a result of the uncontrolled quarrying of the limestone by the third respondent and the respondents be directed to pay compensation for such damage, that the State Government be directed to prepare a schem...
Punjab National Bank, Delhi and Etc. Vs. Prem Sagar Choudhary and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1988HP33,[1989]66CompCas526(HP)
ORDERV.P. Bhatnagar, J.1. When would interest cease to run on the payments made towards the discharge of the interest-bearing decretal amount, is the main question which falls for determination in these cases. This would, in turn, depend upon the scope and interpretation of Rule 1 of Order XXI as amended by Civil P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, which came into force with effect from Feb. 1, 1977.2. The law on the above point, as it stood before the amendment referred to above, was clear inasmuch as the Supreme Court in AIR 1970 SC 161, Meghraj v. Bayabai had approved the normal rule, based on the conjoint reading of Section 60 of the Contract Act, 1872 and Order XXI, Rule 1 of the Civil P.C. 1908, that any payment made by a judgment debtor was to be applied in the first instance towards the satisfaction of interest and thereafter to the principal amount, unless otherwise indicated by the judgment-debtor while making the payment. The ratio of Meghraj's case (supra) has been consistently fol...
State Vs. Y.V. Mehra and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1488
R.S. Thakur, J.1. This Criminal Misc. Petition (M) under Section 482 read with Section 397/401 of the Cri. P.C. has been directed against the two orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra Sessions Division, Camp at Chamba, dated Dec. 11, 1985andJan.7,1986,inSessionsCaseNo. 11 1985, filed on behalf of Radhasoami Satsang (Beas), (hereinafter referred to as the Satsang), through its local Secretary at Dalhousie. Shri Tara Singh. '.2. The fact giving rise to this petition are more or less undisputed. The Satsang is a religious denomination with its headquarters at Beas in the State of Punjab and it owns, inter alia; land and buildings at MotiTibba in Dalhousie town, Himachal Pradesh, which property appears to be in the charge of the Local Secretary of the Satsang Shri Tara Singh, the petitioner herein.3. On July 3, 1984, at 9.45 p.m. said Tara Singh lodged a report in the police station Dalhousie, wherein he alleged that the respondents (accused) Y.V. Mehra and others formed an u...
Khem Chand Vs. Hari Saran and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-1987
Reported in: AIR1988HP10
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. This appeal arises from an order of remand passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Special-I), Shimla, which, if upheld, would result in a de novo trial of the suit under circumstances which do not warrant the adoption of such a course.2. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the original defendants. The appellant brought a suit for a declaration that a document purporting to record a compromise between him and the first respondent was void, illegal and inoperative and for the consequential relief in the nature of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the suit land. The suit was resisted by the contesting respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the compromise in question was arrived at the instance of the appellant and that the same was legal and valid and further that they were in actual possession of the suit land save and except a very small portion thereof on which the app...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›