Himachal Pradesh Court December 1992 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.
Sukh Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: AIR1993HP65
Bhawani Singh, Actg. C.J. 1. Petitioner (77) claims to be afreedom-fighter. He states that he was the subject of the Ruler of State of Bilaspur. Before independence, the Indian National Congress was fighting for the independence of the country from British Rule. Similar movements for the freedom of the country and for the merger of the princely States with the Indian Union were going on. Bilaspur was one of such princely States. This movement was being run by various Praja Mandals affiliated to 'All India States Peoples Conference', central organisation of which Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru was the Chairman. The key object of said Praja Mandal movement in various States was to achieve independence for the country and merge the princely States with the Indian Union. 2. The petitioner was also attracted to this movement in Bilaspur. He became its active member. The Raja of Bilaspur made all efforts to suppress the movement by imprisoning and or ordering externment and internment of the polit...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kavita Rani and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC606,1993ACJ489
Devinder Gupta, J.1. Question of law arising for determination in the two appeals being common, the same are being disposed of by a single judgment.2. On 28th May, 1986, Havildar Rajinder Parshad took army jeep on duty from Yol to Alhilal. Major General Ram Krishan, VSM (Retd), Ex-Col. Commandant Assam Regiment, who had come to visit Yol Camp, under his own arrangement, took lift in the said jeep for going to Palampur, being on way from Yol to Alhilal: Near Aria, bus HIC 516, driven by Nand Kishore, respondent No. 5 and owned by Unemployed Graduate Bus Service, respondent No. 4, came from the opposite direction. According to the claimants, it was being driven rashly and negligently at a very high speed. While it was downhill and on wrong side, it struck against the jeep, as a result of which the jeep was pushed back to the hillside. Consequent to this impact, one side of the jeep was blocked by the hillside and the other by the bus, resulting in breaking out of fire and ultimately burn...
NaraIn Chand Prashar Vs. Prem Kumar Dhumal and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-1992
Reported in: AIR1993HP84
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The election of respondent No. 1, the returned candidate from Hamirpur Parliamentary constituency is under challenge in this Election Petition. Nominations for filing papers to the Lok Sabha from 4-Hamirpur Parliamentary constituency commenced on 20th April, 1991. Last date for the same was 26th April, 1991 and the dates for scrutiny and withdrawal were 27th and 29th April, 1991, respectively. The polling was held on 20th May, 1991. Counting of votes could not commence on 26th May, 1991, due to the assassination of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and was deferred to I6th June, 1991. The counting commenced on 16th June, 1991 at Hamirpur, Una, Bilaspur and Dehra simultaneously. The result was declared on 17th June, 1991. Respondent No. 1 secured 2,05,970 votes as against the petitioner, who secured 2,02,232 votes. Respondent No. 1 was declared duly elected having won the election with a margin of 3738 votes. Respondents No. 2 to 16 were the other candidates who contested the e...
The Sood Sabha Shri Ram Mandir, Shimla Vs. Shri R.P. Grover
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-1992
Reported in: AIR1993HP76
ORDERKamlesh Sharma, J. 1. This civil revision is directed against the decree and judgment dated 9th June, 1989 passed by Judge, Small Cause, Shimla whereby respondent-plaintiff has been held entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit of security. The counter claim of the petitioner-defendant of Rs. 212/- was dismissed. 2. This revision petition is under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Before decidingthe present revision petition, the scope of interference with the impugned decree and judgment under Section 25 of the Act needs to be considered. Section 25 of the Act is:-- The High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. The words 'according to law' have been interpreted in various ju...
Goverdhan Lal Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1992
Reported in: AIR1993HP67
ORDERKamlesh Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner is a deed-writer. He has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for expunction of adverse remarks made against him in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment dated 2nd February, 1978 passed by, the District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1975 titled Khushal Chand and Fithu v. Smt. Hakam Devi. 2. The appeal was against the judgment dated 2nd May, 1978 of Senior Sub-Judge, Hamirpur whereby the suit filed by Smt. hakam Devi was decreed in her favour for possession of the property in dispute -- land measuring 30 kanals 14 Marias and a house. The allegations of Smt. Hakam Devi which were found correct by the trial Court as well as by the first appellate Court were that she was owner in possession of the property in dispute and defendant Fithu in connivance with defendant Khushal Chand obtained her general power of attorney by fraud and misrepresentation and thereafter sold her property in dispute...
inder Singh Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ620
Bhawani Singh, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimla, dated 21st, February, 1991, whereby claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been dismissed. The appeal comes to this Court in the following circumstances:2. The claimant Inder Singh was travelling in bus No. HPS 4387, belonging to Himachal Road Transport Corporation on 8th September, 1989. The bus met with an accident at Sainj in Teshil Theog. As a result of this accident, the claimant sustained injuries to the lower limbs of his body and became totally paralytic. The claimant asserted that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. He sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- on various counts. This petition was resisted by the respondent. It has been stated that the claimant had already been paid Rs. 500/- by way of interim relief and in case it is found that the claimant is entitl...
Punjab National Bank Vs. F.N. Gold Head Ltd. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1992
Reported in: AIR1993HP79
ORDERD.P. Sood, J. 1. The suit is for the recovery of rupees sixty-three lacs and odd. Written statement had been filed by the applicants-defendants Nos. 1 to 5 on whose behalf the instant application has been filed for recalling the order dated 9th June, 1992. 2. Some of the essential facts for consideration of this application are that this Court feeling the necessity of calling for the defendants for recording the statements of defendants Nos. 3 to 5 and 7 passed an order on 18th May, 1992 for their personal appearance before this Court on 8th June, 1992. These defendants were represented by their counsel Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, whose power of attorney is on the record. The aforesaid defendants failed to appear on the said date and instead of waiting for their arrival, the case was adjourned to 9th June, 1992. It is pertinent to note that on all the three dates referred to above, Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, the counsel for the aforesaid defendants did appear before this Court. 3. In order to ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›