Himachal Pradesh Court August 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.
Bilasi Ram Vs. Bhanumagi
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC88
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. It is an open and shut case. Rent petition filed under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 was allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide the Order passed by him on 11.11.2003, in which inter alia he directed the petitioner - tenant to pay arrears of rent calculated @ Rs. 800/- per month, from 1.3.1998 along with 9% interest thereupon and costs assessed at Rs. 29.50. The amount of arrears of rent at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 800/- per month for the total period of 68 months 10 days was calculated at Rs. 54,666/-. Interest @ 9% on the aforesaid arrears on a gradual scale of reduction was calculated at Rs. 14,076/-. Adding to both, the amount of costs of Rs. 29.50, the total amount due was calculated at Rs. 68,771.50.2. Mrs. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid calculations or the aforesaid total amount due. The Rent Controller in the impugned order records that the petitioner -tenant had deposited Rs. 65...
Devta Satya NaraIn and anr. Vs. Lal Chand and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ShimLC92
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. The short point involved for consideration in this Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 20.2.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul Spiti at Kullu, relates to the interpretation to be placed upon the second proviso to Sub-section (iv), read with Clause (e) of Sub-section (v), of Section 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Court Fee Act, 1968 (for short '1968 H.P. Act').2. The facts, in brief, may be stated as under:3. Petitioners - plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that 8 heads of property categorized (A) to (H) are owned and possessed by Devta Satya Narain, petitioner No. 1, who is the family deity of petitioner-plaintiff No. 2 and respondent - defendant No. 1 Lal Chand. In the suit, petitioners - plaintiffs also sought a further declaration that a perpetual lease executed by respondent - defendant No. 1 concerning half share of the land in categories (A) and (B), 174th ...
Susheela Verma and ors. Vs. Sh. Gopal Mandi Sabha
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ShimLC293
Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The present revision petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order passed by the appellate authority dated 1.4.2000 whereby the appellate authority has allowed the appeal of the landlord and set aside the order of the Rent Controller (I), Shimla dated 26.9.1998 and ordered the eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent and the original tenant having been allotted accommodation reasonably sufficient for his requirement.2. It would be pertinent to point out that Shri Bhupinder Gupta learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that he does not challenge the finding of the appellate authority with regard to the finding on the issue of non-payment of rent and his challenge is limited to two grounds, firstly, that the eviction petition has not been properly instituted nor it had been filed through a competent person and secondly that the landlord h...
Raj Rani and ors. Vs. Naresh Kumar Puri and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC149
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This petition has been filed by three sisters who are the daughters of late Sh. Jagdish Chand Puri who was admittedly a tenant in the premises in dispute.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the tenanted premises which are non-residential in nature were rented out to late Sh. Jagdish Chand Puri on rental of Rs. 25/- per month w.e.f. 1.11.1969. The landlords filed a petition for eviction of the original tenant on 25.6.1991. When the matter was pending before the Rent Controller the tenant Sh. Jagdish Chand Puri died and his sons Avinash Puri and Nand Lal Puri were impleaded as respondents being his legal representatives. They contested the claim petition and finally an order of eviction was passed against tham on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent and had ceased to occupy demised premises for a period of more than 12 months prior to the filing of the eviction petition.3. Feeling aggrieved, the tenants preferred an appeal...
The H.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Gobind Phar ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: AIR2007HP3,[2007(4)JCR424],2006(2)ShimLC300
Surjit Singh, J. 1. The Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has filed the present suit through its Senior Manager (Project) Shri Vinayaka Kahol against defendants No. 1 to 4 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,43,49,345/-.2. Cause of action, as disclosed in the plaint, may be summed up thus. One of the functions of the plaintiff - Corporation is to provide financial assistance to industrial units. Defendant No. 1, which is a private limited company, applied to the plaintiff for grant of term loan of Rs. 49.5 lacs for construction of a building, purchase of land, plant and machinery for setting up a factory of manufacturing of basic drugs at Baddi, District Solan. Term loan of Rs. 45.5 lacs was sanctioned on 30.5.1992 and the remaining amount of Rs. 4 lacs on 8.4.1993. Loan documents were executed by defendant No. 1 through its Directors, impleaded as defendants No. 2 to 4. The documents included loan agreem...
Sat Pal Vs. Sunaina Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC163
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This matter has been placed before me on account of divergence of opinion between My Lord the Chief Justice and Surjit Singh, J. with respect to the interpretation to be put upon Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. I have had the privilege of going through both the aforesaid opinions and have also heard the learned Counsel assisting the Court in detail. Since only a short question of law has been referred to me, it is not necessary to give the factual matrix of the case.3. To appreciate the amplitude and scope of Section 24, and the various contentions, it would be necessary to refer to Section 24 of the Act which reads as under:24. Vesting of appellate authority on officers by State Government.-(1)(a) The State Government may, by a general or special order, by notification, confer on such officers and authorities, as it thinks fit, the powers of appellate authorities fo...
Dhanpat Seth and ors. Vs. Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(33)PTC339(NULL)
Surjit Singh, J.1. The present petition, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 94(e) and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of temporary injunction, has been moved by the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2005.2. Facts, relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be noticed. The plaintiff/petitioners have filed a suit seeking grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from infringing Patent No. 195917, in respect of a device of manually hauling of agriculture produce, granted in their favour on 11.7.2005. It is alleged that the invention was conceptualized visualized by the plaintiff/petitioners in the year 1999. The application for grant of patent was moved on 24.5.2002 and the patent, after making all the necessary inquiries and observance of the procedure, prescribed under the Patents Act and the rules framed thereunder, was granted on 11.7.2005. The patented device is an improvement over a local product known as 'Kilta' mad...
Nirma Ram Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: AIR2007HP2
Surjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record.2. A suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining Ishwari Dutt, defendant (now deceased), from causing interference in his possession over certain property, which he (the plaintiff) claimed to be owned and possessed by him. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court with the finding that the plaintiff was not proved to be the owner in possession. He went in appeal to the Court of the learned District Judge, challenging the aforesaid finding and the decree of dismissal of suit. He moved an application, under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the first appellate Court, seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint so as to explain therein how he acquired title to the suit property, because the trial Court in its judgment had given the finding that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to establish his title to the suit land. It appears that that application was opposed b...
Sat Pal Vs. Smt. Sunaina Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ShimLC102
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. Because of the order passed on 24.7.2006 this case has come up to the Division Bench for hearing and disposal.2. The background in which this matter has come up for consideration has been spelt out in details in the order dated 18.7.2006 passed by the Single Judge of this Court. To re-capitulate and to appreciate the subject-matter of controversy involved in this petition in its proper perspective, it shall be advantageous to take note of some brief but salient features of the case.3. Under Section 24(1) (b) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (1987 Act, for short) , it has been provided that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller, may, within fifteen days etc. prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority having the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeals.4. The only exception with respect to the aforesaid right to prefer an appeal is the exclusion of the orders passed under Section 16 of the 1987 Act. Clause (b) is of cours...
Bir Singh and anr. Vs. Kishan Chand
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: AIR2007HP24,2007(1)ShimLC146
ORDERSurjit Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record.2. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land, comprised in khasra Nos. 166/1 and 169, alleging that earlier his father was in possession of the said land as a tenant and that after the conferment of the proprietary rights, under the provisions of 11.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, he (plaintiffs father) became the owner. He claimed that possession had been with the father of the plaintiff from the very beginning, i.e. since the inception of tenancy, but in the year 1981-82, the father of the defendants-appellants, who was a brother of the father of the plaintiff, got his name incorporated in the column pertaining to the name of persons in possession and on the strength of that entry forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land in the year 1990.3. Suit was contested by the appellants-defendants. They alleged that the suit was barred by time, the plaintiff had no cause of action nor did he have the locus ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »