Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2000HP48,[2000]99CompCas251(HP)
R.L. Khurana, J.1. The plaintiff, a private Limited Company duly incorporated under the Companies Article 1956, has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 11,90,711.10 paise agaisnt the two defend ants on the following averments : -The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electric resistance pipes, welded M.S. Blocks and galvanised steel tubes of various diameters. It is also engaged in the business of undertaking job works for slitting and galvanising of black steel tubes etc. The defendant No. 2, who was having regular business dealings with the plaintiff, in the year 1987, introduced defendant No. 1 as a prospective customer. The defendant No. 1 was desirous in the purchase of steel tubes and also for getting the work of slitting, rolling and galvanising of black steel tubes etc. done. Since the plaintiff did not have any dealings with the defendant No. 1, it was reluctant in having dealings with defendant No. J. However, defendant No. 2 assured th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961HP42
C.B. Capoor, J.C.1. This appeal by the Collector, Bilaspur is directed against an order of Shri Chet Ram, the learned Additional District Judge Bilaspur, whereby on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the respondent was awarded a sum ot Rs. 540/- as compensation for loss of earnings.2. No compensation was awarded to the respondent by the learned Collector. The learned Additional District Judge determined the net monthly income of the respondent at Rs. 45/- and awarded such income for a period of one year as compensation. 3. The first contention that has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Court erred in fixing the income of the respondent at Rs. 3/- per day and in support of that contention reliance was placed upon the statement made by the respondent herself to the effect that her daily income varied from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 2/8/-. There is no doubt that in the face of the aforesaid statement the learned Court should not have determined the daily ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1994HP71
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. The three revision petitions, though arising out of separate orders passed by appellate authority(I), Shimla and also arising out of separate eviction proceedings can conveniently be disposed of by a common order, since questions of law and fact arising are almost same and similar.2. Civil Revision 65 of 1992. This civil revision has arisen out of eviction petition preferred by late Darshan Singh Kochhar, who is now represented by his son Satwant Singh Kochhar, in which eviction of the Girls Industrial Training School, located in a part of the Willow Bank building. The Mall, Shimla was sought. The ground for eviction as made out in the petition was that the entire building has become very old. It has outlived its utility and life. The premises in question as well as the other portion of the building Willow Bank in occupation of the other tenants are required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building, which building and re-building c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976HP6
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner prays for certiorari quashing the order of the Election Tribunal dated September 9, 1974 setting aside his election as Chairman of the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh.2. By the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970, Himachal Pradesh became a State on and from January 25, 1971. Section 24 of the Act amended the Advocates Act, 1961, thereby providing for a Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh. The first Bar Council was constituted shortly thereafter, and its first meeting was held on November 7, 1971. When the term of office of the members was due to expire, proceedings were taken for the election of members to succeed them. On August 30, 1972 an election programme was issued setting out the dates for the different stages in the election process. After polling and counting of votes, the Advocate General of Himachal Pradesh verified the list of elected candidates, and the results were published in the Gazette on May 26, 1973.3. It may be s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991HP32
ORDERBhawani Singh, J.1. By this revision petition, the tenant has challenged the judgment of Appellate Authority (I), Shimla, in C.M.A. No. 125-S/14 of 1988 decided on 28-3-1989 thereby affirming the order of the Rent Controller dated 12-8-1988 in Case No. 70/2 of 1986.2. The facts, in brief, are that the tenant occupies premises consisting of two rooms and one store of the building known as 'Pen Rose Lodge, Kasumpti, a suburb of Shimla. The landlord moved this petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 on grounds, inter alia, that the tenant had failed to pay the rent from 1-8-1982 to 30-9-1986 despite repeated demands and notices and that the building was very old and had outlived its life and was in a dilapidated condition and thus had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It is just like a village house without any modern facilities and the petitioner had purchased the building with a purpose to demolish the same and reconstruct a buildi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991HP50
ORDERBhawani Singh, J. 1. Petitioner Jamit Ahmad has a grievance against the judgment of the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act (District Judge), Nahan, in appeal No. 12N/ 14 of 1982, decided on April 28, 1983, thereby affirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, District Sirmur, at Nahan, in Rent Suit No. 2/2 of 1979, decided on July 1, 1982. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') is occupying the shop on the ground floor of the building bearing Municipal No. 1759/9, situate in Ward No. 9, Mohalla Ganughat, Nahan. It is a double storeyed building and the respondent (hereinafter called as 'the landlord') purchased it through a registered sale deed dated October 5, 1978 and is occupying the first floor thereof. 3. A petition, seeking eviction of the petitioner was moved on the grounds inter alia that he was in arrears of rent; that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation; the same is b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1990HP89
ORDERBhawani Singh, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Solan, under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, in Rent Appeal No. 78-S/14 of 1978, decided on July 9, 1982. By this judgment, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners-landlords and affirmed the order of the Rent Controller in case No. 14/2 of 1977/69/1 of 1978, decided on November 28; 1978. The landlords have a grievance against these judgments, hence this revision in this Court.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the tenant, Gulzari Lal was inducted as such by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner-landlords, namely, Smt. Vidya Devi wife of Shri Vidya Dhar, prior to the purchase of the premises in dispute consisting of a shop located opposite to the United Commercial Bank -- Rajendra Corporation, The Mall, Solan, by the present petitioner-landlords.3. The petition has been filed under Section 14(3)(a)(iii) of the Himachal Pradesh U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993HP84
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The election of respondent No. 1, the returned candidate from Hamirpur Parliamentary constituency is under challenge in this Election Petition. Nominations for filing papers to the Lok Sabha from 4-Hamirpur Parliamentary constituency commenced on 20th April, 1991. Last date for the same was 26th April, 1991 and the dates for scrutiny and withdrawal were 27th and 29th April, 1991, respectively. The polling was held on 20th May, 1991. Counting of votes could not commence on 26th May, 1991, due to the assassination of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and was deferred to I6th June, 1991. The counting commenced on 16th June, 1991 at Hamirpur, Una, Bilaspur and Dehra simultaneously. The result was declared on 17th June, 1991. Respondent No. 1 secured 2,05,970 votes as against the petitioner, who secured 2,02,232 votes. Respondent No. 1 was declared duly elected having won the election with a margin of 3738 votes. Respondents No. 2 to 16 were the other candidates who contested the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1998HP32
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. Appellant, hereinafter referred to as the wife' has preferred this appeal against the judgment passed by Shri Janeshwar Goel, District Judge, Una District Una. Vide judgment dated 3-5-1995, the Court below has dismissed the petition of the wife filed by her against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the husband) for annulment of her marriage by a decree of nullity on the ground that the marriage between the parties has not been consummated, owing to the impotence of the husband as per Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Facts which are not in dispute are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 30-11-1992 at Village Katohar Kalan, Tehsil Amb, District Una and the parties lived together up to 12-12-1993 at Village Bhanjal, the native village of the husband. Case of the wife further as pleaded before the trial Court was that the husband refused to cohabit upon wife and showed his ignorance a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965HP12
Om Parkash, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Bilaspur, awarding maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings, to the appellant.2. The appellant had filed a petition, under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for judicial separation, from respondent No. 1, her husband. She had, also, moved an application, under Section 24 of the Act, for the grant of maintenance pendente lite, and expenses of the proceedings. It was alleged, in the application, that the appellant was poor and had no independent income to support herself and for the necessary expenses of the proceedings and that respondent No. 1 was a rich man and his monthly income was Rs. 500/- The appellant had prayed that she be granted maintenance of Rs. 100/- per mensem, pendente lite, and a sum of Rs. 500/-, as expenses of the proceedings.3. The application was opposed, on behalf of respondent No. 1. It was denied that the appell...
Tag this Judgment!