Himachal Pradesh Court August 2011 Judgments
Bhandaru Ram (Deceased) Through His Lr Rattan Lal Vs. Sukh Ram and Oth ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
Kurian Joseph, C.J. 1. “Once a mortgage always a mortgage” is a principle based on equity, justice and good conscience evolved for the first time in 1681 by Lord Nottingham. The reference to that effect is available in ‘Law of Mortgage’ by Dr. Rashbehary Ghose, 8th Edition at page 281, which reads as follows: “In 1681 Lord Nottingham in the leading case of Harris v. Harris, (1681) 1 Vern 33 firmly laid down the principle: ‘Once a mortgage, always a mortgage.’ This is a doctrine to protect the mortgagor’s right of redemption: It renders all agreements in a mortgage for forfeiture of the right to redeem and also encumbrances of or dealings with the property by the mortgagee as against a mortgagor coming to redeem. In 1902 the well known maxim, ‘ once a mortgage, always a mortgage’ was supplemented by the words ‘and nothing but a mortgage’ added by Lord Davey in the leading case of Noakes v. Rice, 1902 AC 24 (HL): 190...
Tag this Judgment!Bhandaru Ram (Deceased) Through His Lr, Rattan Lal Vs. Sukh Ram and Ot ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
Kurian Joseph, C.J. 1. “Once a mortgage always a mortgage” is a principle based on equity, justice and good conscience evolved for the first time in 1681 by Lord Nottingham. The reference to that effect is available in ‘Law of Mortgage’ by Dr. Rashbehary Ghose, 8th Edition at page 281, which reads as follows: “In 1681 Lord Nottingham in the leading case of Harris v. Harris, 1681 (1) Vern 33 firmly laid down the principle: ‘Once a mortgage, always a mortgage.’ This is a doctrine to protect the mortgagor’s right of redemption: It renders all agreements in a mortgage for forfeiture of the right to redeem and also encumbrances of or dealings with the property by the mortgagee as against a mortgagor coming to redeem. In 1902 the well known maxim, ‘once a mortgage, always a mortgage’ was supplemented by the words ‘and nothing but a mortgage’ added by Lord Davey in the leading case of Noakes v. Rice, 1902 AC 24 (HL) : 190...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: M/S Sunjay Biotech Solution Private Limited, Mumbai ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Solan, passed in Consumer Complaint No.131/2008, dated 10.7.2009, whereby the complaint of the complaint was allowed and the opposite party was directed to replace the instrument within 15 days. It was further directed that in case the opposite party fails to replace the said instrument, then they were directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,69,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 8.8.2009 till making full payment of the aforesaid amount and the damages to the tune of Rs.1500/- were also awarded alongwith litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. Factual matrix of the case are that the complainant is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical formulations and opposite party is manufacturing concern of pharmaceutical instruments. Complainant had placed order for the purchase of various instruments vide order No.HR/PROJ/06-07, dated 30.1.2007 ...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter of Om Parkash Sharma, District Shimla, H.P Vs. the Chief ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member, J 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Shimla, passed in Consumer Complaint No.193/2005 on 19.5.2009, whereby the complaint of the complaint was dismissed on the ground that there is no substance in the complaint and it being merit less and vexatious. Parties hereinafter are being referred to as per their status in the complaint. 2. Facts of the case within narrow compass are that son of the complainant booked a registered letter on 9.2.2004 from the Post Office, Ladraur, District Hamirpur which was to be delivered to the Officer Incharge Admission Cell, Deans Office, Armed Forces, Medical College, Pune through opposite party No.2 vide receipt No.2616, but said registered letter was not delivered to the addresses well in time and received by him un-delivered on 24.2.2004. Further allegations in the complaint are that this all happened due to the deficiency of service of employees of the opposite parties, as a resu...
Tag this Judgment!Angdui Norbu and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
Kurian Joseph, C.J. Dictionary defines democracy as “ a system of government by the whole population usually through elected representatives”(The Concise Oxford Dictionary). Democracy pre-supposes participation and involvement of the people governing systems. A village is the basic and indestructible unit of our social system. Article 40 of the Constitution of India obliged the State to take steps to organize village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority, as may be necessary, to enable them to function as units of self-government, as a directive principle of a state policy. It took more than 40 years to give a meaningful translation of that principle, by introducing the 73rd amendment in the Constitution in the year 1992, providing for the conferment of powers on local self government institutions, in the process of de-centralization of democratic institutions and providing for greater accountability between the citizens and the State. It will be profitab...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Dutt Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
V.K. AHUJA, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, dated 23.10.2003, vide which the appellant has been held guilty under Sections 376 and 366 and 363 I.P.C. and sentenced as under:- “(i) To undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under section 366 of the Indian Panel Code and in default of making the payment of fine he shall further undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of one year, AND (ii) The convict aforesaid is also sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 year for the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine aforesaid he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.” No separate sentence was passed by the learned trial Court under Section 363 I.P.C. observing that it has merged in the sentence imposed under Section 366 I.P.C. ...
Tag this Judgment!Hans Raj and Others Vs. Ran Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan on 23.3.2002 in Civil Appeal No.51-S/13 of 2001. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff” for convenience sake) instituted a suit for declaration and injunction that he was owner in possession of the suit land and the appellants/defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants” for convenience sake) had no right, title and interest over the same in any manner whatsoever, consequently defendants be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land in any manner whatsoever. According to the plaintiff, Tara Chand alias Taru was owner in possession of the suit land comprised in Khata No.89, Khatauni No.104, Khasra Kitas 5, measuring 1 bigha 14 biswas situate i...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Kumar Vs. Subhash and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
V.K. Ahuja, J.: 1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree, dated 21.5.1999, passed by the learned Additional District Judge(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby he reversed the judgment and decree, dated 17.6.1997, passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class(II), Kangra, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant (hereinafter also referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction as against the original defendant Maya Dass, now represented by his legal representatives, hereinafter referred to as the defendant. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he was a minor under the guardianship of his mother Began Devi, who is the natural guardian of the plaintiff and as such has no adverse interest against him. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the land in suit, as detailed in the plaint, is situated at Mohal Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Manjit Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
KULDIP SINGH, J (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 17 of 2011 dated 18.04.2011, registered at Police Station ChintpurniJi under Sections 498-A, 306 and 34. The status report has been filed, record perused. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner and deceased Poonam Devi got married about three years ago and a daughter was born from the wedlock. It has been alleged that petitioner and his parents used to maltreat the deceased and did not provide her with day to day expenses. The further allegation is that on account of treatment given by the petitioner and his parents etc. deceased consumed some poisonous substance and committed suicide on 17.4.2011. On the basis of above allegations a case has been registered implicating the petitioner, his parents, brother-in-law and sister. It has also been submitted that except petitioner the others have been released on bail. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Sharma Vs. Dr. Akash Deep
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
V.K. Ahuja, J. Oral: 1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife against order, dated 11.1.2011, passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla allowing the application filed by her for maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act amounting whereby a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month and litigation charges to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- were awarded. The petitioner is aggrieved by the meagre maintenance awarded by the court of the learned District Judge. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the copies of the documents placed on record. The petitioner had submitted that her two children are school going and she is only getting a sum of Rs. 11,000/- per month by working in a school and the respondent is getting more than Rs. 35,000/- per month as income, being a Class-I Officer and accordingly she had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month for her...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »