Himachal Pradesh Court December 2001 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.
Roshan Lal and ors. Vs. Kartar Chand and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: AIR2002HP131
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. The appellants are the plaintiffs, whereas, respondents are the defendants and they will be referred to as such in this judgment. In this appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. the plaintiffs are aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 3-1-1994 passed by the District Judge, Hamirpur whereby the appeal of the defendant Kartar Chand was accepted and decree and Judgment dated 7-11-1986 of the Senior Sub-Judge, Hamirpur was set aside. The Senior Sub-Judge, Hamirpur had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were held entitled to succeed to the estate of Shri Sunder to the extent of 3/4th share on the basis of Will dated 6-1-1969 Ex. P. 2 and accordingly they were declared owners in possession thereof. The adoption deed dated 15-6-1978 Ex. D. 1 gift deed dated 15-6-1978 Ex. D.2 and Cancellation deed dated 28-4-1980 Ex. D.3 were declared null and void.2. The brief facts of the case are that one Shri Hushnaki was the common ancestor of the parties who was owne...
Dalip Singh Vs. Ram Nath and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2002HP106
R.L. Khurana, J.1. This second appeal at the instance of the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 25-11-2000 passed in Civil Appeal No. 49-NL/13 of 20*00 by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan Camp at Nalagarh, affirming the judgment and decree dated 12-5-2000 of the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class; Arki Camp at Nalagarh in Civil Suit No. 11/1 of 1997/99, was admitted for hearing on 22-3-2001 on the following substantial questions of law :--1. Whether the time was the essence of the contract and the suit as laid is barred by time?2. Whether the plaintiff has necessarily to prove the sufficiency and availability of funds in order to establish his readiness and willingness to perform his part Of the agreement?3. Whether specific performance of the agreement cannot be ordered in view of the alternative relief of recovery of earnest money?2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are these. Defendant is the owner of the land measuring 8 bighas 3 biswas comprising of khasra N...
Meena Kumari and ors. Vs. Tulsi Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2985
ORDERKuldip Chand Sood, J. 1. Petitioners herein pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them by complainant Tulsi Ram through a private complaint filed by him registered wih learned Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, as Criminal Complaint No. 263-1/95.2. It appears, Tulsi Ram filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for the trial of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 463, 468, 420, 423 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.3. The case of the complainant is complaint was that he was allotted land measuring 6 Kanals 7 Marias at Tikka Khagal, Mauja Jangal, Tehsil and District Hamirpur as landless and poor person pursuant to the scheme framed under H. P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilisation) Act, 1974. The mutation of the land allotted to him was sanctioned on 27th April, 1980.4. Petitioners Pawan Kumar and Anil Kumar were negotiating with the wife of the complainant for the purch...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Walayati Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC179
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. Both these appeals are being taken up together since they have arisen out of the same accident. Facts relevant for deciding these are being briefly noted hereinafter:F.A.O. No.70 of 1996:Wilayati Ram is the husband and Umesh Kumar is the son of late Smt. Savitri Devi (hereinafter referred to as the claimants'). On the fateful day i.e. 10th July, 1993 deceased along with claimant No. 1 Wilayati Ram were travelling in Taxi bearing Registration No. HPY-866. It was being driven by Nazir Ali. It was owned by Shri Des Raj and was admittedly insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. They were on way from Nahan to Chamba.2. When this Taxi reached near a place known as Panchpulla, (shown as Panchkula in the statement), near Banikhet on Pathankot Chamba Highway, there was a land slide. It was also raining. According to the claimants, Wilayati Ram asked the driver not to cross the blockade. Ignoring this request of Wilayati Ram Nazir Ali tried to go across the blockade wh...
Roshan Lal Vs. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ329
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Admitted. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. D. Dadhwal, learned Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 and waives service of notice of admission. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Sadar Sub Division, Mandi (HP) on 30.3.2001 in the matter titled Roshan Lal, s/o Zalam Ram v. Basandhrai Bottlers Private Ltd. through its Managing Director/Proprietor has approached this Court by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution.3. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that he is a permanent resident of District Mandi. He was employed by respondent No. 2, Basandhrai Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director/Proprietor in the Bottling Plant at Ner Chowk. According to him, he received the injuries durin...
Ranjana Nagpal Alias Ranjana Malik Vs. Devi Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2001
Reported in: AIR2002HP166
R.L. Khurana, J.1. The appellant before this Court was defendant No. 3, while respondent No. 1 was the plaintiff and respondents No. 2 to 4 were the defendants No. 1, 2 and 4, respectively, before the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 156/1 of 1991. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are being referred to accordingly hereinafter.2. Defendant No. 3 is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30-6-1997 of the learned District Judge, Shimla, affirming the judgment and decree dated 17-6-1992 of the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class (3), Shimla.3. The defendants No. 1 to 4 and one Smt. Sumitri Devi (mother of defendant No. 3) representing themselves to be the owners and in possession of the house property known as 'Anwar Cottage' Lower Kaithu, Shimla along with servant quarter and the land underneath comprising of khasra No. 100, khata/khatoni No. 227/390 measuring 11 biswas (as detailed in the jarnabandi for the year 1965-66), on 1-10-1982 entered into an agreement with the plaint...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›