Himachal Pradesh Court February 1999 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.
Satish Katoch Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3833
ORDERSurinder Sarup, J.1. The petitioner, along with other persons is an accused in a criminal case FIR No. 301 of 1998 under Sections 307/34/120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Palampur, on 25-10-1998.2. He along with co-accused Shiv Karan Singh had applied for bail to this Court but his prayer was rejected by an order dated 24th November, 1998, in case No. Cr. M. P. (M) 352/98. Subsequently, another application was preferred by him before this Court which was dismissed on 1st January, 1999. He made yet another attempt by filing Cr. M.P. (M) No. 29 of 1999 and the following order was passed on 29th January, 1999:Heard.During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that he be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to move the Magistrate under Section 167 (2), proviso, since the requisite challan is stated not to have been filed within the stipulated period of 90 days. Leave granted.The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.3. I...
Mohan Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: [2000]99CompCas81(HP)
D. Raju, C.J. 1. The above writ petition has been filed seeking for a declaration to quash Sub-clause (c) of Clause 3 of annexure filed as PB as also the decision rendered by the third respondent dated July 16, 1991, filed as annexure PE whereunder the third respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to any other reliefs enumerated in the letter of the Reserve Bank of India dated September 19, 1990, and declare as a consequence thereof that the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as envisaged in the proceedings filed as annexures PB, PB-1 and PH.2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners it is necessary to advert to certain factual details. Petitioner No, 1 who is the proprietor of the second petitioner concern is carrying on business in the manufacture of furniture under the name and style of Himachal Furniture Industries at Thakur Dwara, Tehsil Palampur in District Kangra. He obtained initially a medium term loan of Rs. 10,000 and ther...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›