Himachal Pradesh Court April 2000 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.
Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Man ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2000
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas763(HP)
Surinder Sarup, J.1. The Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., hereinafter to be called 'the plaintiff-Corporation', has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 23,77,049.55 along with interest, costs, etc., against defendants Nos. 1 to 3. It may be stated here that the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation has also been impleaded as proforma defendant No. 4 in the suit.2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-Corporation through its managing director, one Shri Yogesh Khanna at the relevant time, being also the principal officer, stated to be competent to file the suit on its behalf.3. The facts, as pleaded, giving rise to the cause of action are that defendant No. 1 through its directors, i.e., defendants Nos. 2 and 3, applied to the plaintiff-Corporation for the grant of term loan of Rs. 21.49 lakhs for the construction of the factory building, purchase of land and plant and machinery, for setting up an industrial unit for the manufacture of intraveno...
Kuldip Chand and ors. Vs. Shiv Ram and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: AIR2000HP119
ORDERM.R. Verma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated June 1, 1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla whereby the review petition, i.e. C.M.P. No. 128-S/6 of 95 under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been allowed and Civil Appeal No. 112-S/13 of 1995/91 has been ordered to be re-heard after recalling the earlier order dated 10-11-1995 dismissing the appeal.2. The learned counsel for the respondents have raised a preliminary objection that this revision petition is not maintainable.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the said preliminary objections and have perused the relevant material on record.4. The impugned order has, admittedly, been passed in a review petition under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure by granting the same. To find out the answer to the question as to what remedy in such situation is available to the petitioners, reference may be made to the relevant provisions of law.5. The rel...
Bhadar Singh Vs. Smt. Jumi
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2001HP9
Surinder Sarup, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Court of the learned Additional District Judge. Kullu, dated 19-11-1992. By the said judgment, the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent has been accepted and reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, namely the Senior Sub-Judge. Lahaul & Spiti District at Kullu, dated 16-7-1988 whereby the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed, the said suit has been dismissed, hence, the present second appeal.2. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 8 Bighas and 12 Biswas to the extent of 1/2 share i.e. 4 Bighas and 6 Biswas by way of adverse and hostile possession, matured into title, to the knowledge of the defendant-respondent and the order of the Tehsildar, Kullu, dated 27-1-1986 is void, illegal and without jurisdiction. Relief of declaration was also claimed to the effect that r...
Ram Chander Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ961HP
ORDERSurinder Sarup, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated June 29, 1999 vide Annexure P3, whereby his appointment as part-time Water Carrier in the Education Department has been quashed.2. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case at this stage in view of some glaring admitted facts on record. It is apparent from the impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal that the same has been passed ex parte without affording any opportunity of being heard on the merits of the case to the petitioner. No doubt, it is recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner, who was respondent No. 3 before the learned Tribunal, was not present] and was proceeded against ex parte, at the same time we have no reason to doubt what has been averred in sub-para (iii) of para 6 of the Writ Petition, whereby it has been indicated that the petitioner is having 60% permanent disability and is resorting to use of crutches. It has also been s...
Satish Kumar Vs. B.S. Komal and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: AIR2000HP121
R.L. Khurana, J. 1. The present petition has been made under Section 28 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for extension of time for making the award by the Arbitrator. 2. The dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration. With the consent of parties Shri A. K. Goel, Advocate, was appointed as Arbitrator. On the elevation of Shri A. K. Goel as a Judge of this Court, Shri D. D. Sood, Advocate, was appointed as an Arbitrator by the Court vide order dated 28-5-1997 passed in OMP No. 525 of 1996. The said Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 17-7-1997. The petitioner concluded his evidence on 22-9-1997 and the case was fixed for evidence of the respondents on 8-11-1997. Vide order dated 22-9-1997 the Arbitrator, with the consent of the parties, extended the time for making the award by four months beginning from 28-9-1997. On 8-11-1997 the evidence of the respondents was not present and on a request having been made on their be...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›