Himachal Pradesh Court April 1989 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.
Smt. Santosh Kumari Vs. Surjit Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-1989
Reported in: AIR1990HP77,1990CriLJ1012
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, C.J.1. This petition shall be registered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri R. K. Sharma is present on behalf of Smt. Santosh Kumari and both the parties, Smt. Santosh Kumari and Surjit Singh are also present.2. This petition arises in the following:circumstances:A news item was published in the Punjab Kesari, Jallandhar, dated October 22, 1988, in which it was mentioned that in an important case, Shri Manoj Kumar Bansal, Judicial Magistrate, District Kangra had permitted one Sh. Surjit Singh of village Niangal (Nurpur) to contract second marriage on the ground of non-fulfilment of his sexual desire from his weak and ailing wife. LearnedMagistrate in his judgment ruled that Smt. Santosh Kumari alias Anita shall continue to be the legally wedded wife of Sh. Surjit Singh and he shall provide her and his daughter all facilities such as clothing, boarding and lodging till their lifetime and shall be liable to marry his daughter.3. Shri K. C. Sood, Dist...
Prem Singh and anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1354
ORDERV.K. Mehrotra, J.1. Prem Singh, the first applicant, is a partner in firm M/s Mohar Singh Prem Singh, the second applicant in this Criminal Revision Petition No. 146 of 1988. The petition has been filed under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was presented in the Court on December 19, 1988. The prayer in the petition is that the charges, which have been framed against the applicants in Case No. 7-N/7 of 1985, (State v. Prem Singh and Ors.) by the learned Special Judge, Solan, on September 29, 1988, be quashed.2. The charges framed against Prem Singh are for offences under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act; Sections 120, 379, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Charges under the provisions of Sections 379, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC have been framed against the second applicant, firm M/s Mohar Singh Prem Singh, through its partner, Prem Singh.3. M/s. Prem Singh Mohar Singh are forest lessees. A First Inf...
Mrs. Rajni Abrol Vs. Adarsh Abrol
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1990HP86
N.M. Kasliwal, C.J.1. On the request made by the learned counsel for both the parties, arguments were heard on the merits of the main appeal.2. Mrs. Rajni Abrol, wife of the respondent Shri Adarsh Abrol, has filed the present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order of Addl. District Judge (II) Shimla dated July 21, 1988. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that no appeal is maintainable against the impugned order, which was passed under Section 24 of the Act. With regard to this objection, Mr. Sood, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that this appeal may be treated as revision, in case no appeal was maintainable. In view of the above circumstances, this appeal was permitted to be considered as revision and learned counsel for both the parties addressed their arguments treating it as a revision.3. The short controversy raised in the present case is with regard to the grant of int...
Senior Sub Judge Vs. Ram Avtar Kansal, Executive Engineer, H.P. Housin ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2432
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. By our judgment and order of November 28, 1988, in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 3 of 1986 (Senior Sub Judge, Dharamshala v. Ram Avtar Kansal) we had held respondent Kansal to be guilty of having committed criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one month. We also said in our order that in case respondent Kansal furnished a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1000/- to the Registrar of this Court within twenty four hours, the sentence awarded by us shall remain suspended for a period of six weeks to enable Sh. Kansal, if he so liked, to obtain appropriate orders, from the Supreme Court by filing an appeal.2. On December 28, 1988, Ram Avtar Kansal presented an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in this Court. In it, he said that he was pleading his innocence in view of the circumstances mentioned in the application and prayed that 'the judgment order b...
Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1156
ORDERBhawani Singh, J.1. The petitioner, a Transport Corporation constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, petitions through Shri Y. D. Sandhya, its Additional General Manager (A. & LL), and appeals to expunge para 13 of the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, in Criminal Case No. 1981/82 decided on 31-1-1986 under Section 279/337/338/ 304A of the Indian Penal Code, thereby passing certain remarks against the Corporation in general and its officers working at various places in the hierarchy of service in particular and further observations to take suitable action against the concerned officials/officers posted at the relevant place during the period of accident. These remarks, for the facility of reference, will be reproduced in extenso in the later part of this judgment. However, it is enough to say that the petitioner feels aggrieved by these remarks; being hit and adversely affected in reputation and working zeal; so desires this Court ...
Madan Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ310
Bhawani Singh, J. 1. The appellant, Madan Lal, feels aggrieved by the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. Una, in Session Case No. 8 of 1985, Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1986. By this decision on 31-3-1986, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or indefault of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for additional term of six months.2. The appellant challanges this judgment by way of this appeal.3. Let the prosecution case be narrated briefly thus. The appellant was a private medical practitioner at Badoohi Chowk in Una. Shattar-Din, complainant (P.W. 2), was a vegetable seller at the same place, occupying a Khokha near a liquor vend and before leaving this place to his village, unsold vegetables used to be kept in this khokha by him. The appellant, the prosecution alleges, used to purchase vegetables from the complainant and on the day of the occ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›