Himachal Pradesh Court January 1997 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.
Vijay Kapoor and anr. Vs. Maya Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-1997
Reported in: AIR1998HP15
ORDERR.L. Khurana, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court is the tenant while the respondent is the landlord of the tenanted premises comprising of Western Set in the lower flat of the building known as 'Sharan Ashram' Lower Kaithu Shimla. The parties are being hereinafter referred to accordingly as tenant and landlord.2. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act from the tenanted premises on the following grounds:--(a) that the tenanted premises are required bona fide by the landlord for his own use and occupation; and (b) that the tenant has been misusing the tenanted premises and is guilty of such acts as to diminish the value and utility of the tenanted premises. 3. The petition for eviction of the tenant was allowed by the learned Rent Controller (I), Shimla vide order dated 16-6-1977. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenanted premises were bona fide required by the landlord for his own use and occupa...
Rajinder Singh Vs. Dalbir Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-1997
Reported in: AIR1998HP43
R.L. Khurana, J.1. The present regular second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-9-1988 of the learned District Judge, Una reversing the judgment and decree dated 28-8-1984 of the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Amb.2. The appellant and proforma respondents 18 to 20 before this Court are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff Surarn Singh. They are being referred to as the plaintiffs hereinafter.3. The deceased-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner and in possession of the land detailed in the plaint and jumabandi for the year 1970-71 and hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute. He also prayed for permanent injunction as a consequential relief for restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with his possession over the land in dispute.4. It was averred that the land in dispute was originally owned and possessed by Bassia son of Gulabu, Rajput, of village Thathal along with S/Shri Ghuman and Nand Lal...
Amarjeet Singh Vs. Anju Rani
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: AIR1997HP64
ORDERArun Kumar Goel, J.1. This is tenant's revision against the order passed by Shri Janeshwar Goyal, Appellate Authority-1 Sirmour District at Nahan. By means of impugned judgment dated 2-7-1996 in Rent Appeal No. 13-N/14 of 1994, the appellate authority below has upheld the order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller-11. Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour in Rent Petition No. 3/2 of 1993 dated 27-10-1994.2. Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlady') had filed an ejectment petition under. Section I4(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act 1987, (hereinafter referred to as the Act') for ejectment of the respondent on the ground that the premises (shop) in question is in a very old condition/construction, roof whereof is not 'pukka' one and it rests on the wooden rafters, the walls of the shop were also of 'kachha' nature and the floor of the shop is on higher level than the floor of the shops in the vicinity, as such the premises were bona fide required by her fo...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Vinod Kumar
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3077
Surinder Sarup, J.1. This appeal is directed against the acquittal of Vinod Kumar, respondent by the Court of Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Judicial Magi strate, 1st Class, Court No. 1, Mandi for alleged offences under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act read with Rule 4 of H.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1982.2. The prosecution case against the respondent is that on 23-7-1989 when A.S.I. Krishan Lal along with Head Constable S/Sh. Bal Banka Ram and Kashmir Singh was on checking duty at Hanogi on Mandi-Kullu National High Way along with Man Singh, witness at about 10-45 p.m. At that time a taxi bearing registration No. HPY-1218 came from Kullu side. It was stopped at the checking point by the police party and was checked by them. Underneath the back seat of the vehicle 14 logs (nugs) of Deodar timber were recovered. The taxi driver could not produce any document pertaining to the transit, of the timber. His name was Vinod Kumar, and on his failure to produce any relevant document p...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Brahm Dass and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT(Cri)13,1997CriLJ3079
ORDERArun Kumar Goel, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the records of this case.2. In the present case the sample of Shakkar (Jaggery) from the premises of respondent No. 1 on 31-12-1987 by Kanwar Prem Food Inspector of the local area of Hamirpur. After completing the coda formalities of disclosing his identity and intention to take sample of 'Shakkar' and on payment of Rs. 2.40 Ps. 600 gms. of Shakkar was purchased by the Food Inspector in presence of Bachiter Singh from respondent No. 1. The same was divided in 3 equal parts, put into 3 separate neat, clean and dry bottles, thereafter those bottles were properly packed, sealed and then one part was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. After analysis, the Public Analyst, Central Testing laboratory, Kandaghat vide his report contained in Ex. PE opined that the sample contained orange coal tar dye, addition whereof is prohibited in an article of food and it is injurious to health. On this basis...
Jagan Nath Vs. Hans Raj
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-01-1997
Reported in: AIR1998HP20
M. Srinivasan, C.J. 1. The second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent herein, who is a tenant, for a declaration that he is a permanent lessee of the piece of land measuring 38-25 Hectres, entered in Khata No. 228 min, Khatauni No. 398 min, Khasra No. 695, situated in Civil Station, Dharamshala, with stipulation that he will build a shop at his own cost and to pay Rs. 70/- per annum as lease money to the defendant for use and occupation of the plot and he is entitled to remain in possession of the same. The second prayer in the suit was for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff by trying to demolish the shop and by digging the foundations and the adjoining area of the shop and also for grant of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the already dug area to its original position.2. The appellant herein contested the suit on the ground that one Khushal Chand became a tenant of the bui...
Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-01-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ253HP
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. In this writ petition, the validity of a reference made by the Government to the Labour Court by its order dated November 2, 1996 is challenged. The order of reference refers to a report of the Labour Inspector, who is 3rd respondent herein under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it states that after considering the matter under Section 12(5) of the Act, it is found that the dispute is a fit one to be referred to the Labour Court. Consequently, two question have been referred to the LabourCourt for consideration. One relates to the legality and justification of lay off resorted to by the Management in respect of 16 workers w.e.f. September 2, 1996. The other question relates to the demands raised by the workers' union with the Management vide their demand notice dated August 22, 1996.2. There is no dispute whatever that the Government is entitled to make a reference under the provisions of the Act, nor can there be any dispute that there is a disput...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›