Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-05-1990
Reported in : I(1991)DMC490
Devinder Gupta, J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated March 7, 1990, allowing the appeal of the husband respondent, whereby the judgment and decree dated June 30, 1989, passed by the District Judge, Shimla, was set aside and a. decree for divorce was granted dissolving the marriage between the parties.2. Marriage between the parties was solemnised on November 7, 1980, at Nirankari Colony, Delhi. A son named Saravpreet was born on January 4, 1982. After the marriage, the parties resided at Ranchi, Bangalore and Shimla. At the time of marriage the husband was holding the rank of Captain in the Indian Army and remained posted at Ranchi and Bangalore but subsequently left the job to assist his widowed mother in managing the family business at Shimla. The relations between the parties became strained in the year 1985 and ultimately on August 13, 1986, a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-14-1990
Reported in : AIR1992HP8
Devinder Gupta, J.1. This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed on March 17, 1980, by District Judge, Hamirpur and Una Districts at Una, dismissing his appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on August 6, 1979, by Senior Sub-Judge, Una, by which suit of plaintiff-respondent was decreed for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction.2. Plaintiff claimed a decree for declaration on the basis that he was in actual cultivating possession of 11 Kanals 7 Marias of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 669, 670, 671, 672 and 674 situate in village Nandpur, Tehsil Amb., district Una, as a tenant under the defendant and the correction made in the revenue records in Rabi 1976 showing the defendant to be in cultivating possession was factually wrong, illegal, unauthorised, ineffective and inoperative against his rights and as on the basis of this wrong entry in the revenue records, defendants had intention tointerfere with his possession, therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-12-1990
Reported in : AIR1992HP11
Devinder Gupta, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree passed on July 30, 1982, by Additional District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Solan, dismissing the appeal of defendants-appellants and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh, dated January 9, 1980, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.2. The plaintiff filed a suit claiming a decree for declaration to the effect that he was in possession of land measuring (a) 46 kanals 15 marlas situate in village Rajpura, Tehsil Nalagarh and (b) 35 kanals 2 marlas situate in village Rangoowal in Tehsil Nalagarh as a tenant under defendants-appellants and that the order passed on July 6, 1977 by the Land Reforms Officer, Nalagarh, in proceedings initiated by defendants under Section 30 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Act No. 8 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was illegal, void, without jurisdiction and ineffective and i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-10-1990
Reported in : 1990ACJ647
Bhawani Singh, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the same accident and common award. They were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. 2. Briefly, the facts are that bus No. HPN 594, owned by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), was being driven by a driver. As soon as the bus reached a place 3 kilometres away from Mandi towards Shimla on 28.8.1980, it met with an accident at 3.30 a.m. According to the claimants, the accident was due to the rash and negligent acts of the respondents. The driver of the vehicle was driving it at an excessive speed. He was negligent as well besides being under the influence of liquor.3. On the other hand, the respondents had denied the rashness and negligence attributed to the driver. They say that the accident was on account of the sudden failure of the lighting system in the bus which could not be discovered by use of reasonable care. The defect, they contended, was latent one which no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-29-1990
Reported in : 1992ACJ40
Bhawani Singh, J.1. All these appeals arise out of the same accident and since a similar question is involved, they are being decided by a common judgment.2. Briefly, the case is that bus No. HIK 3227, driven by Kehar Singh and conducted by Ajeet Singh, left Pathankot bus stand on 20.5.1988. After just crossing Chakki Bridge, a bomb which was lying hidden in the bus, exploded causing injuries to some and proving fatal to others travelling in the bus.3. Consequently, the heirs of the deceased and the victims of the blast preferred claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra Division. Among other things, it has been stated that the bus was stationed at bus stand, Pathankot which is a disturbed area and is hot with terrorist activities. Number of attempts had been made by the terrorists to attack Himachal Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'HRTC') buses in the area of Punjab. However, nothing was done to safeguard the vehicles in this are...
Tag this Judgment!