Himachal Pradesh Court March 1994 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.
Vikas Kapoor Vs. Chet Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1156
D.P. Sood, J.1. Complainant has assailed the impugned order of dismissal of his complaint on account of his non-appearance on 15th June, 1993 passed under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In order to appreciate the points involved for determination of this Court, it would be necessary to detail certain relevant facts.3. Complainant had supplied goods to the accused. For consideration thereof, he had issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 8,500/- on 30th April, 1992 in the name of M/s. Vikas Rubber Industries, Mandi drawn on Himachal Gramin Bank, Nihri for full and final settlement thereof. The said cheque was bounced because of insufficiency of funds. Complainant issued a notice as envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which remained unreplied. Ultimately, the above said facts culminated into the filing of the present complaint.4. The trial court after observing codal formalities with respect to inquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code...
Sri Kanth and ors. Vs. Smt. Sheela Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1994
Reported in: AIR1995HP124
D.P. Sood, J.1. In this regular second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 18th January, 1985 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1982, the plaintiffs/appellants have sought the reversal thereof.2. The bone of contention in between the parties is land measuring one kanal comprised in Khasra No. 236/1 and Khasra No. 233/1 situate in Taka Gauna, Tappa Kohla, Teshil and District Hamirpur (hereinafter shortly referred to as the 'suit land'). Shri Shambhu Ram, one of the plaintiffs died during the pendency of this appeal and vide order dated 2nd January, 1990 passed in CMP No. 194 of 1988, his legal representative, namely, Shri Sri Kanth has been substituted in his place. Similarly, Sain Dass, one of the defendant also died during the pendency of this appeal and vide order of the even date (2-1-1990), his legal representatives Nos. l(a) to l(e) have also been brought on record. The parties to the instant ...
Narinder Kumar and anr. Vs. Ramesh Kumar and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-1994
Reported in: AIR1995HP87
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. This is defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree passed on 15th December, 1988 by the Additional District Judge, Solan dismissing their appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on 7th December, 1985 by the Senior Sub-Judge, Solan decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following questions of law:1. Whether the appellants who were residing with Rattan Chand and Bhagwanti Devi at the time of their death are entitled to inherit the tenancy rights under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987?2. Whether the appellants were trespassers in the premises and the decree for possession passed by Civil Court is sustainable in law?2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.3. The plaintiffs claimed a decree for possession by way of ejectment of defendant-appellants from a residential premises comprising two rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine, verand...
Jugal Kishore Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-09-1994
Reported in: AIR1995HP8
1. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following questions of law:1. Whether on a proper construction of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, the suit was within limitation? 2. Whether the respondent, public bodies could be allowed to defeat the legitimate claim of the plaintiff by setting up narrow and technical plea of limitation? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Article 113 of the Limitation Act applied to the case? 2. The facts, in brief, are that plaintiff on 30th April, 1979, filed an application under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as 'the Code'), seeking to sue the defendants as an indigent person. It was claimed by him that he was prosecuting his studies as a student of 8th class in Government Middle School, Ripoh Misran, District Una, during 1973-74. He appeared in the annual examination in the month of March, 1974 but was declared fail in the said examination. Suspecting some foul play, he approach...
Amar Singh and ors. Vs. Kehar Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-1994
Reported in: AIR1995HP82
D.P. Sood, J. 1. In this Regular Second Appeal under Section 32 of H, P. Courts Order, 1948 against the judgment and decree D/-June 20, 1984, by defendant Mehar Singh and others, the sole question for determination is:'Whether plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their right to take water from Kiar Khad to their ghrats on the basis of custom?'2. Before I proceed to determine the aforesaid question, it would be appropriate to detail certain necessary facts leading to the instant appeal. Respondents are plaintiffs Whereas appellants are defendants (shortly hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants). The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking the water from Kiar Khad to their newly constructed ghrats at point 'A'' through water channel indicated as 'B' in the map annexed with the plaint, or from interfering with their rights to the use of the water. Plaintiffs assert the existence of their ghrat in khasra No. 56 and 55/1 sit...
Jaunda Ram Vs. Dola Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-1994
Reported in: AIR1995HP123
D.P. Sood, J.1. In this regular second appeal the only substantial question of law which arise for adjudication is:--'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Courts below were right in law in holding that the suit is not maintainable?'2. On 22nd April, 1976, the plaintiffs hadpreferred a suit challenging the sale made bythe Court in execution of a decree in favour ofdefendants Nos. 2 and 3 on 17th January,1976. In an earlier civil suit No. 211 of 1972,one Shri Dola Ram had obtained a consentdecree vide order dated 1-6-1973 against Pala,the father of plaintiffs which was later onexecuted and ultimately the possession of thedisputed property was handed over to defendants Nos. 2 and 3. It is pertinent to note thatthe sale of the disputed property in thoseexecution proceedings was effected on 17-1-1976 before coming into force of the Code ofCivil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (ActNo. 104 of 1976). The said amendment wasmade effective from 1-2-1977.3. In the aforesai...
K.C. Azad Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ974
ORDERD.P. Sood, J. 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner has assailed his prosecution pursuant to the First Information Report No. 4 of 1986 recorded in P.S. (Enforcement) South Zone, Shimla, and prays for quashing thereof.2. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Director of Horticulture in the Horticulture Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh. His involvement is for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471, 511 and 120-B of the Penal Code besides under Section 5(2)--(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The basis of the First Information Report is the enquiry report of the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, which consists of two parts. The first part thereof deals with the purchase of barbed-wire and second part deals with the purchase of Sintex Water Storage Tanks (hereinafter referred to as 'Tanks'). As per the prosecution the petitioner is connected with the second part. The alleg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›