Himachal Pradesh Court November 1991 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.
Uco Bank Vs. Gorkhi Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1991
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas795(HP)
D.P. Sood, J.1. The UCO Bank is the decree-holder pursuant to the decree passed in their favour and against the judgment-debtors. They moved an application under Order 21, Rules 43 and 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for attachment of the residential house belonging to judgment-debtor No. 1, besides seeking other reliefs. Judgment-debtor No. 1 for himself and on behalf of judgment-debtor No. 2, in his reply raised an objection to the attachment of the residential house by contending that the said house was not attachable in view of the amendment made to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure under Section 21.2. The fact that the house is a sole residential house of the judgment-debtors, has been denied by the decree holder in their rejoinder.3. All these pleadings have been supported by affidavits by the respective parties. They have also adduced evidence in the form of affidavits and same allegations have been corroborated by each one of them.4. I have heard learned counse...
Purewal and Associates Ltd. and anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1991
Reported in: AIR1992HP26,[1993]76CompCas858(HP)
Leila Seth, C.J.1. This review application has been filed by the Punjab National Bank, Respondent No. 1 in C.W.P. No. 447 of 1991.2. The brief facts are set out. On 8th August 1991, a writ petition was filed by Purewal and Associates Limited and its Managing Director praying for a writ of mandamus or a direction to be issued to the Punjab National Bank 'to deal with the 1st petitioner in the mailer of opening a Letter of Credit as also to afford all other normal banking facilities and to carry oui its obligations' in accordance with the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.3. On 12th August 1991, the writ petition was listed for preliminary hearing when notice to the respondents was issued to show cause why rule nisi be not issued. Mr. Chhabil Dass, Advocate General, accepted notice on behalf of the Punjab National Bank. Respondent No. 1 and the State of Himachal Pradesh, Respondent No. 4; Mr. M. L. Sharma Central Government Standing Counsel, accepted notice for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the U...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›