Himachal Pradesh Court April 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.
Lilawati Kapoor Trust Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and Another.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR164(HP)
DEVINDER GUPTA J., - Since a common question of law has arisen for determination in these two writ petitions and as the parties are also the same, the decision of legal questions is also based upon similar facts, and therefore, the writ petition can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.Smt. Lilawati Kapoor possessed considerable property. To safeguard the properties and to regulate their administration, a trust was created under a will executed by her. M. D. Kapoor was named as the executor who obtained probate of the will. The petitioners net wealth was of such an amount as to render it liable to wealth-tax under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (Act No. 27 of 1957), hereinafter referred to as the 'Wealth-tax Act'. Neither did the petitioner file any voluntary return on or before June 30 of each corresponding assessment year for eight assessment years 1968-69 to 1975-76 nor had the Wealth-tax Officer issued any notice to the petitioner under sub-section (1) and s...
Shri Bansi Ram and ors. Vs. Shri Khazana
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1993HP20
D.P. Sood, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal under para 32, of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order has been directed against the judgment and decree dated April 16, 1982, of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi and Shimla Division, Camp at Bilaspur.2. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Their suit for possession of suit land by way of redemption was decreed by the trial Court, but has been dismissed in appeal on the short ground that the suit is patently time-barred. Thus the sole question involved in the instant case is 'whether the suit in question has been filed within time'.3. The facts leading to the instant appeal, shortly stated, are that S/Sh. Shyama and Jyoti, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had mortgaged with possession the suit land with S/Shri Jawahar and Kanshi Ram, predecessor-in-interest for a consideration of Rs. 100/- on 10th of Jeth 1977 BK. On 8th February, 1967, the plaintiff preferred an application for redemption of the mortgage in question before the ...
General Public of Saproon Valley and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Himachal P ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1993HP52
V.K. Mehrotra, Actg. C.J.1. Civil Writ Petition No. S67 of 1988 was instituted in this Court OBI October 10, 1988 by, what is described as, 'the General Public of Saproon Valley through its President Murlidhar Sharma' along with eight other residents of village Lavighat and one of village Saproon in Tehsil and District Solan, in Himachal Pra-desh. There are sixteen respondents in the petition of whom the first five respondents are the State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries); the Director of Industries Himachal Pradesh, the Collector Solan; State Geologist, Himachal Pradesh; and the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Chambaghat, District Solan. Respondents 6 to 16 are the persons extracting limestone in the area. Of them four namely, Hariram Mehta (respondent No. 9), Sit'am' Ram (respondent No. 10), Bahadur Singh (respondent No. 15) and Mani Ram Mehta (respondent No. 11) of this' petition are petitioners in the connected writ petitions No. 598/599,600 and 601 ...
Roshan Lal Chauhan Vs. Roshan Lal Pokta
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: AIR1992HP69
ORDERV.K. Mehrotra, A.C.J. 1. Applicant Roshan La! Chauhan is a tenant in the ground floor of 'Overvale Cottage', Shimla, since the year 1980. The premises were later purchased by the respondent-landlord, Roshan Lal Pokta in April 1982. The landlord made an application on May 5, 1984, under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (briefly, 'the Act') seeking ejectment of the tenant on the basis of personal need. The petition was allowed by the Rent Controller on June 28, 1986. The tenant filed an appeal against this order in which a caveat petition was filed by the landlord under Section 148-A CPC. 2. The matter was taken up before the Appellate Authority on June 12, 1987. A statement was made by the tenant on that date, inter, alia, saying that he had entered into-a compromise with the landlord that the order of eviction shall not be executed by the landlord till March 31, 1989, and that he (tenant) undertook to deliver vacant possession of the premises on or before ...
Roshan Lal Pokta Vs. Roahan Lal Chauhan
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1378
ORDERV.K. Mehrotra, Actg. C.J.1. Applicant Roshan Lal Pokta is landlord of a building called 'Overvale Cottage' at Shimla. Earlier, he was a tenant in it. He purchased it in April 1982. The applicant is in occupation of the first floor. Respondent Roshan Lal Chauhan is a tenant in the ground floor. He was inducted by the previous owner in the year 1980.2. On May 5, 1984, the landlord made an application seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement under Section 14(3) (a)(i) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (for brief, 'the Act') The application was allowed by the Rent Controller on June 28, 1986, whereafter the tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. A caveat petition was filed by the landlord under Section 148-A CPC.3. When the matter was taken up on June 12, 1987 before the Appellate Authority, a statement was made by the tenant saying, inter alia, that a compromise had been entered into between him and the landlord to the effect that t...
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Milkhi Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2130
Bhawani Singh, J.1. This Court received a reference of 28-10-1981 from Sub Judge-cum-Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur (Kangra District). It disclosed that while announcing the judgment in Case No. 50-11/81 (State v. Milkhi Ram) Under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused, accompanied by Bhikham Singh C. No. 102, Parkash Chand C. No. 326 and Chuni Lal C.No. 618 of Police Lines Dharamshala, hurled a shoe at the Judicial Magistrate and also used abusive language. He was not handcuffed by the Constables who were ordered to do so. Milkhi Ram was over powered by the court officials and the Advocates present there. It has been desired by this reference that necessary action be taken against the wrong doers.2. The statement of Milkhi Ram was recorded by the Sessions Judge during the inspection of the jail. In his statement Milkhi Ram has stated that these Constables and Shri Ramanand, Station House Officer, Palampur had forced him to throw the shoe at the Magistrate. Ta...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shri Dharam Dass
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1758
D.P. Sood, J.1. This appeal by state of Himachal Pradesh is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla (Shri A. L. Vaidya as he then was acquitting respondent Dharam Dass for the alleged commission of the offence Under Section 363, 366 and 376, IPC.2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that Kumari Satya, aged fifteen years, a minor, was being looked-after by her brother Shri Sant Ram (P. W. 2), he being her natural guardian because of the death of her parents much earlier to the occurrence. Smt. Devku was the mother-in-law of said Sant Ram (PW-2) and she was also being looked-after, by the latter. On December 3, 1980, the prosecutrix had visited and also stayed for the night with said Smt. Devku at the behest of her brother Sant Ram (P.W. 2). On the following morning, i.e. on 4-12-1980 at about 9.00 a.m., she left her brother's house located at village Cheri, Pargana Pagogi, Police Station, Dhalli. As per the prosecution, the accused had once visited the hous...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›