Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : [1998]93CompCas388(HP)
Kamlesh Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings under which the balance amount of loan and interest allegedly due and payable to the respondent-Corporation is being recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. The main challenge is that these proceedings have been initiated on the certificate issued by the managing director of the respondent-Corporation that a sum of Rs. 8,85,512 was due from the petitioner, which certificate was issued without giving him any opportunity. This certificate is issued under Section 3(1)(d)(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Relying upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M.A. Kamath v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, AIR 1981 Kar 193, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the certificate issued by the managing director for recovery of the loan amount deserves to be quashed being violative of the principles of natural justice, as no opportu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1967HP1
ORDEROm Parkash, J.C.1. This revision-petition, against an order of the learned District Judge, Mahasu, raises an important question of law, with respect to the appointment of recognized agents, on behalf of the Central Government, for purposes of signing and verifying plaints and written-statements, and acting in suits, instituted, against that Government in Himachal Pradesh, a Union territory. The determination of the question involves the consideration of Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and of the following two notifications :(1) Government of India, Ministry of Law, Notification No. S. R. O. 282 dated the 21st January, 1958. 'In pursuance of Clause (1) of Article 239 of the Constitution and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Law, No. S. R. O. 699, dated the 8th April. 1953, the President hereby directs that the functions assigned to the Central Government by Order XXVII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1988HP1
T.R. Handa, J.1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 21st November, 1980, recorded by a single Judge of this Court allowing Civil Writ Petition No. 148 of 1971 filed at the instance of the present respondent No. 1, Shri Sher Singh Mehta. Since the controversy surviving at this stage between the parties pertains to a pure question of law, it is not considered necessary to give the factual details leading to this appeal. The following short narration would suffice for appreciating the subsisting controversy:2. The appellant in this case is a society registered under the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter called 'the Act'. Respondent No. 1, the writ petitioner was a member of this society. In the year 1965, respondent No. 1 supplied a consignment of potatoes to the appellant-society at the rates which were mutually agreed upon. Subsequently a dispute arose between the appellant and respondent No. 1 concerning the price of the said cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : I(2005)ACC788,2005ACJ857
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. F.A.O. No. 267 of 1993 was an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) wherein the appellant insurer had challenged the correctness of the judgment and award dated 5.7.1993 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Kangra at Dharamshala in M.A.C.T. Case No. 45 of 1991. Based on the grounds taken in the said appeal, appellant insurer had prayed for setting aside of the aforesaid award. Vide judgment dated 25.5.2004 this court dismissed the aforesaid appeal.2. In the aforesaid appeal, the claimant Lata filed the cross-objections and sought the relief of enhancement of the compensation amount inasmuch as apparently the claimant-cross-objector was not satisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal in the aforesaid claim petition and feeling aggrieved of the awarding of lesser amount than had been prayed for, or was expected, she sought the relief of enhancement of the compensation amount in the aforesaid cross-objecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972HP99
Chet Ram Thakur, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order, dated 15th July, 1968. passed by the District Judge, Sirmur District at Nahan, whereby he accepted the appeal of Ram Sarup and dismissed the appeal of the present appellants. The landowners have filed separate appeals against this order and both of them will be disposed of by this judgment.2. The facts in brief are that the land in question originally belonged to Mahant Gurdyal Singh, who gifted this land in favour of his minor sons, Gurpal Singh and Karanvir Singh, vide mutation No. 58, dated 17th January, 1966, along with other land. This land was in the tenancy of Ram Sarup who filed an application under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquisition of the right, title and interest of the landlord in the land.3. The minors who had become owners of this land by virtue of the gift made in their favour by their...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972HP69
Chet Ram Thakur, J. 1. This second appeal has been referred to a Full Bench as one of the questions which arose, when it came up for hearing before one of us, was whether the rights of the reversioners who had obtained a decree declaring that their rights were intact despite an alienation made by a widow, prior to the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), were affected by the provisions of the Act. A Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in Amar Singhv. Sewa Ram, had, it was submitted, held that the rights of reversioners are' not governed by the provisions of the Act, but by the law prevailing before the commencement of the Act. This question arose, on the facts found by the lower courts, as detailed below.2. On the death of Shihnu, the last male holder of the property in dispute, his widow, Smt. Karju, succeeded as a limited owner of the estate left. On 22-5-1946, she gifted the land in dispute, which included her share in Shamilat land, to La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2006CriLJ939
Surjit Singh, J.1. Appellant Ram Lal has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 20-4-2000 of learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1999, whereby he has been convicted of the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of which he has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for two years.2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. On 20-2-1999 a telephonic call was received at Police Station, Rampur Bushahr from Sh. G.S. Guleria, Executive Engineer, I.P.H., Rampur. The caller informed that the wife of the Chowkidar, namely Ram Lal (appellant), employed in his office had caught fire in the quarter of the said chowkidar and they (the caller & some others) had extinguished the fire and sent the lady to the Referral Hospital, Rampur and that the matter may be enquired into. The report was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1991CriLJ3339
ORDERV.K. Mehrotra, J.1. The applicants in these Criminal Revisions Under Sections 397 and 401, Cr. P.C. are facing trial before Special Judge (Forests) Shimla in different criminal cases. Facts giving rise to these criminal revisions are similar. Those in the case of applicant Tara Datt may alone be noticed : The case of the applicants, accused persons in Corruption Trial No. 26-S/7 of 1987 registered as criminal case No. 14-S/7 of 1989 came up before the Special Judge, Shimla, on December 31, 1987. On that date the order passed by the learned Judge was :'Office report seen Heard. Register. I have seen the reports and perused the documents appended with the challan and found that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The accused persons be summoned for 22-3-1988. Sd/-Special Judge, Shimla.'The case came up before the Special Judge on several dates thereafter. Not much progress could be made for various reasons. However, the matter was heard on January 4, 1990, o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971HP20
D.B. Lal, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal and has been directed against the decision dated 5th March, 1968 of the District Judge, Kangra, whereby, after confirming the decision of the Senior Sub-Judge, Kangra, he has decreed the suit of the plaintiff Rana Himal Chand for declaration to the effect that he is in cultivatory possession as owner of disputed land situate in Tikas Gankhetar and Kasba of mauza Baijnath in the tehshil of Palampur.2. The plaintiff came to Court with the allegations, that the disputed Khasra numbers situate in the respective Tikas were allotted to him by the Custodian in, lieu of certain land which belonged to him and which he had to leave in Pakistan. The quasi-allotment was made on 14-8-49 while permanent allotment was made on 18-2-57. The plaintiff came in actual possession and started cultivating the disputed land. However, in the revenue papers the entry, 'Gair Mumkin Abadi' was made which, according to the plaintiff, was a wrong entry. Subsequently ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977HP41
C.R. Thakur, J. 1. This execution second appeal has got a chequered history. Subedar Mast Ram and others fileda suit for declaration to the effect that the land comprised in Khasra No. 1346/3 was the Shamilat Tikka land of the residents of village Larha, in tehsil Hamirpur and that Khyali Ram had taken unlawful possession of the same and they, therefore, prayed for possession of the same as a consequential relief. This suit was filed by them in a representative capacity on 16-10-1952. The suit was decreed on 18-8-1953. The decree-holders took out execution proceedings on 4-8-1960. The judgment-debtor also filed objections under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code which were dismissed and in consequence of the execution possession of the land was delivered as also the costs amounting to Rs. 534.77 were recovered from the judgment-debtor and paid to the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor went in appeal to the court of the District Judge against the dismissal of his objection petition which ...
Tag this Judgment!