Himachal Pradesh Court May 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.
Amar Nath Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC343
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. This petition can be disposed of on a very short question. The facts may be stated in brief.2. An appeal under Section 30(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter 1971 Act for short) was filed by respondent No. 2 Jagdish Chand against the petitioner Amar Nath as well as proforma respondent No. 3 Udho Ram before Shri V.C. Katoch (HAS), Additional Director, Consolidation Department, Himachal Pradesh against the order dated 27th August, 1984 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, Hamirpur in case No. 166/81. The Settlement Officer; Consolidation of Holdings, Hamirpur had passed the aforesaid impugned order dated 27th August, 1984, himself exercising the appellate jurisdiction under Section 30(3) of 1971 Act against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 24th May, 1981. The aforesaid appeal before the Additional Director against the aforesaid order dated 27th August, 1984 pa...
P.R. Rana Vs. Ajay Kaushish and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ShimLC80
Deepak Gupta, J.1. The respondents, (hereinafter referred to as the landlords), filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises on the ground that he had failed to occupy the same since April, 2000 without any reasonable cause. The petition was filed on 13.3.2002. The tenant was served and put in appearance on 23.7.2002. After the pleadings were completed, issues were framed on 5.12.2002. The petition was then fixed for the evidence of the landlords. On 29.10. 2003 two witnesses were present, but they were discharged on the request of the Counsel for the landlords that he wanted to examine the witnesses alongwith the other witnesses. Thereafter the case effectively came up for the landlords' evidence on 17.5.2004. On the said date four witnesses were present. The witnesses, who were present, were discharged by the learned Rent Controller on the request of Counsel for the tenant who had moved an application under Order 13 Rule 10 for summoning of some re...
Rakesh Kumar Dinesh Kumar and ors. Vs. U.G. Hotels and Resorts Ltd. an ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: AIR2006HP135,2006(2)ShimLC384
Deepak Gupta, J.1. The plaintiff No. 1 M/s. Rakesh Kumar Dinesh Kumar claiming itself to be a Hindu Family Trading Firm has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 12,23,250/- on account of principal and interest from the defendants. The suit was filed through Rakesh Kumar who is stated to be Karta of HUE Rakesh Kumar was also joined as plaintiff No. 2. Dinesh Kumar is plaintiff No. 3 who is stated to be a member of the plaintiff No. ] (HUF). Originally the suit was filed against three defendants. However, names of defendants No. 2 and 3 were deleted and presently the only defendant is M/s. U.G. Hotels and Resorts Limited.2. In a nutshell the case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff No. 1 is a Hindu Undivided Family Trading firm of which plaintiff No. 2 is the Karta and member and plaintiff No. 3 is the member. This firm deals in Haryana business at Lakkar Bazar, Shimla. The defendant which is running the hotel in Shilon Bag on the Kufri Chail road had been purchasing goods on credit...
Col. R.S. Kashyap Vs. Smt. Sunena Sood and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC351
Surjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record.2. Appellant-plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the land, as described in the plaint and hereinafter referred to as the suit land and that the order of conferment of proprietary rights, in respect of the suit land, upon late Smt. Shanti and the making of a Will in respect of the suit land by Smt. Shanti in favour of respondents No. 2 to 4 and the sale of a portion of the suit land by respondents No. 2 to 4 in favour of respondent No. 1, were illegal, void and of no consequence upon his rights and by way of further relief, he prayed for passing of a decree of possession of the suit land in his favour.3. Facts, as disclosed in the plaint, were that the plaintiff had been serving in the Army. His father was an old and infirm man. Smt. Shanti was recorded as tenant under the father of the plaintiff qua the suit land. On 17.5.1976, mutation was attested conferring the proprietary rights in favour of...
Divya Jyoti Educational Society and anr. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Board of ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC220
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This case brings out the deplorable state of affairs in the State of Himachal Pradesh with regard to the manner in which schools are being run and affiliation granted to them.2. The facts necessary for decision of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 Society is running a school under the name and style of Divya Jyoti Senior Secondary School at Sanouran Chowk, Gaggal, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. This school is affiliated to the respondent No. 1 H.P. Board of School Education. The respondent No. 1 has framed regulations regulating the affiliation of educational institutions affiliated to the Board. These regulations are called the H.P. Board of School Education Affiliation Regulations, 1992.3. According to the petitioners they had applied to the Board for affiliation of classes 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 for the academic session 2004-2005. The respondent Board granted provisional affiliation to the petitioners for the session 2004-2005 vide order dated 18.1.2005 for 10...
Rishi Electricals (P) Ltd. Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC270
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for setting aside the award dated 23.10.2002 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.2. The brief facts, necessary for the decision of the case, are that the respondent/Board issued a notice inviting tenders for supply of Galvanized Steel wires. The objector submitted his tender which was accepted and purchase order was issued to it on 9.6.1995. Disputes arose between the Board and the objector and in terms of the arbitration agreement the dispute was referred to arbitration. Initially Shri R.P. Goel, Chief Engineer (Projects) was appointed as the sole Arbitrator but later on he was replaced by Shri O.C. Kaushal, who was the then Chief Engineer (Hydro Planning) of the respondent / Board. The Arbitral Tribunal announced its award on 23.10.2002.3. I have heard Shri J.S. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of ...
Hari Chand Vs. Jaishi Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC289
Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This appeal raises a short question of law with regard to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, who heard the suit.2. The facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract claiming that the defendants No. 1 and 2 had entered into an agreement to sell certain property situate in Tehsil Dehra, to him for a total consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. According to the plaintiff, he had paid Rs. 8,000/- in advance. Defendants No. 1 and 2 contested the suit and filed a written statement The agreement was admittedly executed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Amb. This suit was contested on various grounds and one of the grounds of contest was that the Court at Amb had no jurisdiction to decide the matter, since the immovable property, specific performance with regard to which was sought, was situated in Tehsil Dehra, territorial jurisdiction of which fell within the domain of the Courts...
Baldev Singh Vs. Pooja Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-23-2006
Reported in: AIR2007HP16,2006(2)ShimLC311
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the correctness, legality and validity of the judgment/order dated 22nd August, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 35-K/2003 filed by the respondent Pooja Devi against the petitioner whereby, the learned Court below has ordered the petitioner to pay to the respondent Rs. 70,000/- towards the marriage expenses of the respondent. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition may be noticed as under.2. Respondent Pooja Devi admittedly is the daughter of the petitioner. She was born on 31st August, 1983 from out of the wed-lock of the petitioner and his then wife Smt. Sita Rani. Due to estranged relations the matrimonial alliance between the petitioner and Smt. Sita Rani broke by the force of a decree of dissolution of marriage passed on 4th December, 1999. The appeal against this...
Pushap Raj Vs. State of H.P. and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-23-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4138,2006(2)ShimLC346
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. Truck No. HP-32-0341 belonging to the petitioner (the petitioner is its registered owner) and also being driven by the petitioner at the relevant time was seized on 5th June, 2000 purportedly in terms of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act 1927. As a sequel to the seizure of this truck and as a prelude to its confiscation under Section 51-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Himachal Pradesh State Amendment), as required under Section 52-B of the said Act (Himachal Pradesh State Amendment), a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Authorised Officer, text whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for our ready reference:Shri Pushap RajS/o Shri Naginder Singh,Village Chachiot, P.O. ShallaTehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, (HP)(Through S.H.O. Gohar).Whereas, it has been reported that truck No. HP-32-0341 owned by you has been apprehended indulging in transportation of different sizes of Deodar 20 sleepers and four frames on 5.6.2000.You are, therefore, directed through this not...
Smt. Nirmala Devi and ors. Vs. Pyar Chand and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC133
Surjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record. Respondent Pyar Chand, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, filed a suit seeking declaration that he alongwith proforma-defendants Punnu and Kuldip Chand, who are related to him as his brothers and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, Are the tenants in respect of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 100, 144, 158, 187 and 188, situate in Mohal Malnu, Mauza Punner, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, hereinafter called suit land, and that the order of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Palampur, holding that out of the suit land, land bearing khasra Nos. 100, 144, measuring 0-30-22 hectares and a portion of land comprised in Khasra No. 158, shown by min number 158/1, measuring 0-56-72 hectares, are in possession of the owners, i.e. appellants-defendants, is illegal and by way of further relief prayer was made for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the appellants-defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »