Himachal Pradesh Court August 1995 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.
Partap Vs. Veena
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: II(1997)DMC626
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. This appeal, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'), is directed against the judgment dated 18.1.1992 passed by Additional District Judge (1), Kangra Division at Dharamshala, Camp at Palampur whereby the petition under the Section 13 of the Act filed by the appellant-husband for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife and decree of divorce was dismissed.2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on January 27, 1989. Admittedly, the marriage was consummated and the parties lived together as husband and wife in their matrimonial home at Village Kandthala, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra till 12th February, 1989 when the appellant-husband returned to his posting in Arunachal. Thereafter, the appellant-husband came on annual leave and lived with respondent-wife from 20th December, 1989 to 11th February, 1990.3. The case set up by appellant-husband in his petition was that he received letters/telegrams from his br...
Sadh Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ880
S.N. Phukan, C.J.1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the following appeals, as the point involved in these appeals is the same:(1) F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 41 of 1992 (Sadh Ram v. State of H.P.).(2) F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 302 of 1992 (Kanta Jain v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director).(3) F.A.O. (M.V.A.) No. 65 of 1993 (Moti Lal v. General Manager).2. The accident took place before coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but the claim petitions were filed after coming into force of the said Act. As there was delay in filing the claim petitions, an application was filed for condonation of delay of the period of limitation. By the impugned orders, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal relying on unamended Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') refused to condone the delay, as the claim petitions were filed beyond the period of 12 months, as contained in the said sub-section. Hence, the present appea...
Sadh Ram and ors. Vs. State of H.P. and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: 2(1996)ACC218
S.N. Phukan, C.J.1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the following appeals, as the point involved in these appeals is the same:1. FAO (MVA) No. 41 of 1992 (Sadh Ram v. State of H.P. and Anr.).2. FAO (MVA) No, 302 of 1992 (Kanta Jain and Ors. v. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Ors.).3. FAO (MVA) No. 65 of 1993 (Moti Lal v. General Manager and Ors.)2. The accident took place before coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but the claim petitions were filed after coming into force of the said Act. As there was delay in filing the claim petitions, an application was filed for condonation of delay of the period of limitation. By the impugned orders, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal relying on un-amended Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988') refused to condone the delay, as the claim petitions were filed beyond the period of 12 months, as contained in the said sub-section. He...
Sukh Dev Vs. Bhagwati Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1995
Reported in: II(1996)ACC174,1996ACJ1292
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the award dated 27.11.1993 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Una, whereby an amount of Rs. 1,57,800 was awarded to respondent-claimant Nos. 1 to (1)hereinafter called 'the claimants') as compensation payable by the appellant-respondent Sukh Dev, owner of the tractor No. PJD 1882. Respondent No. 10, Som Nath, son of Mangat Ram, was stated to be driver of the said tractor. Respondent No. 11, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has been absolved of its responsibilities to indemnify the owner of the said tractor on the ground that there has been breach of specified condition of the insurance policy, such as, the driver did not have the valid licence at the time of accident which was in violation of Sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.3. The brief facts are that one Madan Lal, ...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 1995ACJ1146
Bhawani Singh, J.1. Rajesh Kumar, petitioner, aged 17 years, has filed this petition claiming compensation from the respondents on account of their negligence in maintaining the electricity supply line which resulted in electric shock to him.2. According to the petitioner, the respondent Board is responsible for super-intending, managing and controlling the transmission and supply of electricity in the State of Himachal Pradesh. On the date of occurrence, the petitioner, who is a young villager, was working in his fields. He used to earn his livelihood from the agriculture and rearing cattle. He has an aged and illiterate mother in the village. On 27.7.1993 at about 10 a.m. he took out his cattle for grazing to his fields. While doing so, the petitioner and one of his bullocks came in contact with the naked energized electric conductor. As a result, the bullock died on the spot due to electric shock while the petitioner after raising alarm also collapsed. The cries of the petitioner at...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›