Himachal Pradesh Court November 2002 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.
Tokha Vs. Smt. Biru and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: AIR2003HP107
ORDERLokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-5-1993 passed by District Judge, Chamba in First Appeal No. 6 of 1992, who, on appeal reversed the judgment and decree of Senior Sub Judge, Chamba dated 18-12-1990 dismissing the suit of the respondent No. 1. The defendant No. 1 Tokha in the suit out of which this appeal arises, is the appellant and the respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff and other two pro forma respondents herein are defendants 2 and 3. Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants.2. Smt. Biru plaintiff filed suit for declaration and possession against the defendants inter alia alleging that she made a gift in favour of one Singh of her land comprising Khasra Nos. 78, 92, 98, 162, 351, 381 396, 410, 425 and 442 measuring 7 bighas and 2 biswas and khasra Nos. 72, 80, 142, 206, 237, 339, 421 measuring 3 bighas and 4 biswas situated in Moh...
Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Devi Singh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1744
Kamlesh Sharma, J. 1. The petition under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 26.4.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimla, whereby movable property of the petitioner-judgment-debtor Corporation has been ordered to be attached. By another impugned order dated 26.6.2001 the execution petition of respondents-decree holders was dismissed as partly satisfied on receipt of the report of the Ahlmad and Nazir that an amount of Rs. 34,010 for which the execution petition was filed stood deposited. In view of this position the objections filed by the petitioner-judgment-debtor under Order 21, rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, were dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that these were filed at a belated stage. While passing this order it weighed with the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that service was effected on the Managing Director of the petitioner-judgment-debtor Corporation on 8...
Nirmala Devi and Etc. Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3499
ORDERM.R. Verma, J.1. Since the facts involved in these two petitions moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as 'the Code') are the same and raises similar questions of law and are aimed at seeking the same final relief, therefore, both these petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner in Cr.M.M.O. No. 69 of 2002 is Nirmala Devi wife of the petitioner/ accused in Cr.M.M.O. No. 82 of 2002. The allegations against the accused are that he is a co-accused in case No. 250/1 of 1997 under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C. which was at the relevant time pending committal. Initially the case was pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur and subsequently was assigned to the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur. Since the accused is an army personnel in the active service of the Army, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur intimated the concerned Commanding Officer vide option mem...
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Jerath Electronics and Allied Industries ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas638(HP),(2003)3CompLJ139(HP),[2003]43SCL126(HP)
Arun Kumar Goel, J. 1. This is an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 442 of the Companies Act, 1956 for stay of proceedings in this suit.2. Admitted facts of this case are that the plaintiff filed Company Petition No. 2 of 1999 under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act for winding-up of the defendant. This winding-up petition was contested and resisted by the latter. Finally on 5-1-2002, this Company Petition was dismissed when it was held by this Court that the dispute which the defendant has raised cannot be treated as fictitious and frivolous. It was further held that there appears to be sufficient justification in the claim of the defendant and that the disputes raised are bona fide. It was further not disputed on behalf of the parties to this suit that Company Appeal No. 1 of 2000 is pending in this court against the rejection of Coy. Petition No. 2 of 1999.In the aforesaid background present suit was filed on 16-5-2001 wherein...
Geeta Devi and ors. Vs. Dibru Ram Alias Ram Rakha
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2004HP29
M.K. Verma, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants') against the judgment and decree dated 6-9-1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala thereby dismissing Civil Appeal No. 60-P/XIII of 1993 against the judgment and decree dated 23-4-1993 passed by the learned Sub-Judge (1), Palampur, dismissing the suit of the appellants.2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that Madho Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants 1(a) to 1(d) and appellant No. 2 instituted a suit for perpetual prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for mandatory injunction against the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent'). Case of the appellants, as made out in the plaint, is that they are the owners in possession of Abadi Deh land comprising Khasra No. 165 measuring 0-00-78 hectares situate in Mohal Kunsal Uperli, Mauza and Tehsil Baijnath. The respondent is...
H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. Vs. Charan Singh and Company
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR659(HP)
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. 1. This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter for short 'the Act') has been preferred by the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Ltd.--defendant herein against the judgment dated 22.10.1992 of the learned Single Judge passed in Civil Suit No. 22 of 1991 whereby the objections preferred by M/s. Charan Singh and Company--Plaintiff herein under Section 30 of the Act to the Award dated 14.03.1991 recorded by the Arbitrator were allowed and as a result thereof the Award was set aside directing the Arbitrator to decide the Arbitration proceedings afresh. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the appeal arise in the following circumstances. The work of launching and floating of Ghall (1980-1981, pertaining to Timber Extraction Division Sawra consisting of approximately 15,000 M3 logs-sawn timber and hakries through Tons River to be launched from Tuini Launching Depot upto boom head (Ichhari) and thereafter the truck haulag...
State of H.P. Vs. Munshi Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1946
ORDERKamlesh Sharma, J.1. This criminal revision at the instance of the State of Himachal Pradesh is directed against the judgment dated 9-4-2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby respondent was granted bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate at Dharamshala on the conditions set out therein.2. It is held by the Additional Sessions Judge that there is total non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the 'NDPS Act') inasmuch as there is no material on record to show that the authorised officer recorded the reasons and sent them to his immediate official superior as required under Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It is also held that the mandatory provisions of Section 42 were also not complied with for not recording the grounds of...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Punjab Communications Ltd. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR604(HP)
M.R. Verma, J.1. By this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') the applicant has prayed for setting aside the award dated 30.11.1999 made by respondent No. 2 (hereafter referred to as 'the Arbitrator').2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this application are that C.G.M.T. H.P. on 24.04.1996 entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 (hereafter referred to as 'the respondent') for the maintenance of various types and makes of radio transmission systems in H.P. Circle. The agreement was to be effective from 10.05.1996 for a period of two years. The other conditions governing the contract between the parties were provided in the agreement including the arbitration clause providing for referring any question, dispute or difference arising between the parties under or in connection with the agreement to sole arbitration of the Arbitrator. The dispute arose between the parties and was referred to the Arb...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›