Himachal Pradesh Court March 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.
Arjan Singh Vs. Smt. Pingle Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1993HP34
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. One Baisakhi made a Will of certain property on September 24, 1963 in favour of plaintiff-appellant Arjan Singh. Baisakhi died on March 7, 1964.2. The plaintiff as well as the defendants -in the suit, out of which the present second appeal has arisen, are admittedly collaterals of Baisakhi who was the last male holder of the property in question.3. On the basis of the Will aforesaid, Arjan Singh claims possession of the entire property which was the subject matter thereof. What was pleaded by the defendants, however, was that it was not open to Baisakhi to alienate any part of the ancestral property through a Will. According to the defendants, the parties inherited the property, to the extent they were entitled to, as far as the property which was ancestral in the hands of Baisakhi was concerned. They did not dispute the due execution of the Will. We may mention that the only advantage that the plaintiff gets under the Will is that the share which came to him under ...
Deepak Singha Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ299
Leila Seth, C. J.1. These four appeals and two cross-objections are being taken up together as they arise out of a common accident and award.2. On 25th August, 1980, an unfortunate accident took place. Bus No. HPS 3482 of the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, which was coming from Chandigarh and going to Thanedhar, hit and smashed the parapets and fell 35 metres below the road. The accident occurred at 4.30 p.m., 2 kilometres short of Narkanda on National Highway No. 22. Many persons were injured and it appears that three persons died in the accident but their heirs are not before us. Deepak Singha, Narotam Chand and Kirpa Ram filed claim petitions. A common award was made in these three cases on 31st August, 1982. This award has been challenged both by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation and the three injured claimants.3. The first contention of learned Counsel for the Himachal Road Transport Corporation is that the accident in question was not due to the rash and negligent dri...
Sham Sunder and Brothers Vs. State of H.P. and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ35
ORDERBhawani Singh, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 1989, decided on 23rd August, 1991, directing the impleadment of the petitioner in Case No. 66-3 of 1989. Let the facts of the case be stated thus:2. The Food Inspector took sample of 'Coconut Toffees' from Janak Raj, a retail seller at Manali. At the stage of taking the sample, the bill of sale was shown to him, however, the petitioner was not added as a party. At a later stage, when the report as to the substandard nature of the food article was received from the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, an application under Section 20-A of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereafter in short 'the Act'), was moved to implead the petitioner in the case. This action was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Mandi who allowed the plea and set aside the order of...
Marian Eva and anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: AIR1993HP7,II(1992)DMC142
ORDERKamlesh Sharma, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 15-7-1988 of Special Marriage Officer, Shimla (Urban), Sub-Division, Shimla, appointed under the Special Marriage Act, whereby he has refused to solemnise their marriage under the Special Marriage Act on the ground that since petitioner No. 1 is a permanent resident of Germany, it is not possible to transmit acopy of notice to Marriage Officer of the District within whose limit, petitioner No. 1 permanently resides, as provided under Section 6(3) of the Special Marriage Act. He has assumed that no marriage Officer under the Special Marriage Act has been appointed in Germany by the Government of India. The order dated 15-7-1988 of Special Marriage Officer, Shimla, was challenged before the District Judge in appeal filed under Section 8(2) of the Special Marriage Act, but it has been dismissed as not maintainable vide judgment dated 25-8-1988 passed by the District Judge, Shimla. Now, by way of this petition unde...
Ranbir Singh and ors. Vs. Gita Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1992
Reported in: AIR1993HP43
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. This appeal under paragraph 32 of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948, is against the decree and judgment dated 28-9-1976 passed by the District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Solan whereby the appeal of respondents-plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3, S/Sh. Gita Ram, Mansha Ram and Jawala Dutt, was accepted, the decree and judgment dated 23-4-1975 of Senior Sub-Judge, Solan, District Solan, was set aside and a decree for possession of the suit land by way of redemption of mortgage was passed in their favour and against the appellants-defendants. Out of appellants-defendants, appellants-defendants Nos. 1 to 7, S/Sh. Ranbir Singh, Raghubir Singh, Balbir Singh, Kumari Asha Devi, Kumari Manju, Smt. Amar Devi, Smt. Munna and appellant-defendant No. 9, Smt. Kamla Devi, are the legal representatives of original defendant Sh. Devi Ram son of Sh. Mast Ram alias Mastia son of Surat Ram, original mortgagee. Similarly, appellant-defendant No. 10, Smt. Dropti Devi, is the daug...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›