Himachal Pradesh Court October 2006 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.
Balbir Singh Vs. H.P. State Forest Corporation
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ShimLC50
Deepak Gupta, J.1. Nazar, son of Thapi, resident of village Karaura, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla was allotted 6 bighas 4 biswas of land as Nautor. This land was comprised in Khasra No. 3926. There were a large number of Deodar and Kail trees on this land. The land was allotted in favour of Nazar on 30.7.1972 on payment of Rs. 310/- as Nazrana. Nazar entered into an agreement with the plaintiff (appellant herein) on 6.10.1972 (Ex.PW-2-C/l) whereby Nazar agreed to sell the standing trees on the land allotted to him as Nautor to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was entitled to convert the standing trees to timber. It would be pertinent to mention that in the agreement, Ex.PW-2-C/l, no consideration whatsoever was mentioned. As per receipts, Ex.PW-2/C-2 and Ex. PW-2/C-3 the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 2,000/- to Nazar on 18.1.1973. Thus, according to the plaintiff he had paid Rs. 3,500/- to Nazar as consideration for the sale of the trees and he alone became entitled to c...
M.K. Enterprises Through Its Sole Proprietor Mukesh Sharma and anr. Vs ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC412
Surjit Singh, J.1. The decision of this writ petition depends upon the answering of the following questions:1. Is it permissible to a department or an instrumentality of the State which invites tenders for any work/job to award the work/job by following some guidelines/rules/regulations assumed to be applicable to that department/instrumentality, which in fact are not, and to which there is no reference, even implicit, in the notice inviting tenders?2. Whether a provision in the Regulations for revision of the rates quoted in the tender by means of sealed or unsealed cover or in the form of an open letter placed in the tender box or if received by post deposited in the tender box by the Administrative Officer/Office Superintendent, is unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?2. First the relevant facts may be noticed. Chief Engineer, Project Deepak, Minto Court, Shimla, respondent No. 2 herein, invited tenders through notice for han...
Baldev Singh and ors. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2007HP32,2006(2)ShimLC434
Surjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record.2. The present appeal is directed against the order of the District Judge, whereby a suit filed by some of the appellants and the predecessor of the other appellants, for declaration and injunction has been held to have abated in whole on account of non-bringing on record all the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiffs within time.3. Relevant facts are that a suit was filed by some of the appellants and some other persons, seeking a decree of declaration that they were joint owners in possession of certain property described in the plaint and also seeking relief of injunction restraining the respondent-defendant/State of Himachal Pradesh, from interfering in the suit land. Relief of rendition of accounts in respect of the trees allegedly felled by the respondents-defendants from the suit land illegally and unauthorisedly was also sought. Respondents-defendants contested the suit and denied the title of the plaintiffs in respect of a p...
Jabbar Singh Vs. Shanti Swaroop
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ShimLC58
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal, under Order 43 Rule l(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, HP, in Civil Appeal No. 78-CA/13 of 2005 decided on 27th June, 2006, whereby he has accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) and remanded the case for fresh trial to the learned trial Court after framing some fresh issues.2. Brief facts of the case are:3. Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the suit land. According to the plaintiff on 18.2.1999 some negotiations took place between him and the defendant. An agreement to sell was entered into on 18.2.1999 and Rs. 10,000/- was paid as earnest money to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff further submits that the defendant forcibly took possession of the suit land. According to the plaintiff, agreement dated 18.2.1999 stands cancelled and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the suit land. In the plaint, ...
Smt. Satya Devi and ors. Vs. Sansar Chand and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC431
Surjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record.2. Suit was filed by the appellant Tirath Ram (now deceased and represented by his L. Rs.), seeking a declaration that he had easementary right of necessity as also of prescription to pass through the vacant site, having 7.5 feet width, lying in front of the house of respondents-defendants and also for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to remove the obstruction caused by them on a portion of that vacant site (hereinafter called path), whereby the width of that path had been reduced to 2.5 feet and to restore the width to its original dimension and also for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from causing any obstruction in the said path. It was stated that the plaintiff had been using the aforesaid path since the times of his forefathers for going to his house and such user was going on for the last more than sixty years. It was alleged that the path had been used continuously without ...
Surinder Lal Sood and anr. Vs. Sadhu Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC438
Surjit Singh, J.1. Revision petitioner Rainka Devi, now deceased and represented by her legal representatives, was the owner of certain premises. Those premises were let out to respondent No. 1 on monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. A petition, under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, was filed by the revision petitioner, hereafter called landlady, seeking ejectment of the tenant on the following grounds:(a) The tenant was in arrears of rent since January, 1976;(b) The tenant had sublet the premises to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, without the consent of the landlady;(c) The tenant had changed the user of the premises and the vacant site appurtenant thereto.2. The tenant and respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 contested the petition. The Rent Controller returned the findings that the tenant was in arrears of rent, he had sub-let the premises to respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, without the consent of the landlady and had also changed the user of the premises and the vacant land appurtenant thereto.3....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›