Court : Himachal Pradesh
R.S. Pathak, C.J. 1. I regret I am unable to agree entirely with my brother D. B. Lal. The facts have been stated in his judgment and need not be repeated here.2. The first question is whether the landlord and tenant are bound in a proceeding for the fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (which for convenience I shall call 'the Act') by an earlier order of the Controller determining the fair rent in terms of a compromise between the same parties in respect of the same building.3. Section 4 of the Act provides for the fixation of the fair rent of a building by the Controller. Sub-section (1) provides that on application by the tenant or the landlord the Controller must fix the fair rent 'after holding such enquiry as the Controller thinks fit'. Sub-section (2) prescribes the scheme to be followed by the Controller. The scheme provides that he should first determine the basic rent. Two considerationsare laid down for that purpose; (a) t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1346
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, in a case under Sections 323 and 325 of the I. P. C. whereby in appeal the conviction of Param Dev for causing voluntary hurt to Smt. Chhetri and her small child Sarla is maintained, although the sentence has been reduced. The prosecution case was, that on 16-5-1969 the accused Param Dev gave a beating to Smt. Chhetri and in this process snatched the child Sarla from her with the result that the child fell down and sustained a fracture in the head. There was also an exchange of abuses between them prior to the causing of voluntary hurt. Param Dev was accordingly prosecuted for the offence under Section 325 for causing grievous hurt to Sarla and for the offence under Section 323 for causing simple injuries to Smt. Chhetri. The learned Magistrate sentenced him for nine months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 325 and sen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976HP1
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the validity of two, notifications dated January 21, 1974 whereby the Governor of Himachal Pradesh has fixed the headquarters of the Solan Sessions Division and of the Solan Civil District at Nahan in the district of Sirmur.2. Three notifications were issued by the Governor of Himachal Pradesh. The first notification No. 11-2/66-Appt. (DP) (i) dated August 30/31, 1972 was made under Section 7 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and by it the limits of the existing Sessions Divisions were altered and the Sessions Divisions were re-constituted, the limits of the newly constituted Solan Sessions Division being the Solan and Sirmur districts with headquarters at Solan. By the same notification the Governor, acting under Section 9 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, established a court of Session for each of the Sessions Divisions so constituted. A copy of this notification is Anne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976HP19
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this Bench:--'Whether this Court which has passed the judgment which is challenged in the L. P. A. by the affected respondents is competent to entertain and hear the stay application against its own orders ?'2. A writ petition was decided by my brother Thakur as a single Judge. He allowed the petition and directed the State and the Chief Electoral Officer to treat the petitioners as regular employees of the Election Department and not to revert them. Against his order a Letters Patent Appeal has been filed in this Court, and in that appeal the present application has been made for staying the operation of the order allowing the writ petition. The Letters Patent Appeal came on for admission before myself and D.B. Lal. J. The latter declared that he would not like to be a member of the Bench hearing the appeal, and accordingly an order was made that the case be listed before a Bench of which he was not a memb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1976CriLJ1466
Chet Ram Thakur, J.1. In this revision petition the question which arises for decision is whether the Public Prosecutor can intervene at the stage of an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr. P. Code, 1898, (hereinafter called the Code) in a case instituted on a complaint by a private person.2. Shri Charan Dass Dogra, an Advocate of Kulu had lodged a complaint under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 109, 114 and 120-B of the I. P. Code against S/Sliri Lal Chand Pararthi and five others. The judicial Magistrate in whose court the complaint was lodged took cognizance of the case as contemplated under Section 190 of the Code and he commenced an enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code. During the course of the enquiry, before processes were issued to the accused, Shri T. R. Sharma who is said to be a Magistrate and was connected with the arrangement of the DUSHERA fair when this occurrence is alleged to have taken place, was examined on 28-10-1971. Later on the Advocate-General appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976HP61
D.B. Lal, J.1. Shri Ajit Kumar filed Civil Writ Petition No. Ill of 1974, wherein he sought for the quashing of the impugned orders, Annexures 'G' and 'J' to the petition whereby he was reverted from the post of Deputy General Manager (Works) in the Transport Department His case was, that he was appointed Deputy General Manager (Works) in the vacancy caused by the transfer of one Shri I. C. Mahajan to the Government of India. According to petitioner, his appointment was on probation for a period of two years and as such could not be held ad hoc. The appointment was also made on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. Subsequently Shri I. C. Mahajan returned from the Government of India and as a result to that Shri Ajit Kumar was reverted by notification Annexure 'G' dated November 7, 1973. Subsequently he was appointed officiating Deputy General Manager in the Himachal Pradesh Agro Industries Corporation but from that post also he was reverted vide Annexure 'J' in April 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976HP75
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a claimants' first appeal directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kangra Division dismissing their petition for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.2. Daya Ram was employed as a truck driver by the respondents Tani Ram, Smt. Raj Kumari, Jagmohan and Chain Lal. They owned Truck No. HIM-4934, which was insured with the Oriental Fire & Life Insurance Company Limited. On February 18, 1968, Daya Ram was driving the truck from Mehatpur to Bahi Kharialti in the Tahsil of Hamir-pur. At Talmehra, at about 6 O'clock in the morning, the truck met with an accident. It overturned and Daya Ram was killed. His widow Smt. dayatri Devi, his daughter Neelam and son Papu filed a claim on May 3, 1968 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation from the employers and the Insurance Company. The respondents resisted the claim on the ground that the Tribunal had no ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976HP54
D.B. Lal, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the respondents wherein they have sought for a certificate of fitness for appeal to Supreme Court under Article 133 (1) of the Constitution. Brief facts of the case from which the present application emerges may now be stated. Messrs. Himachal Shoddy Mills Limited filed a writ petition against the Union of India, the Textile Commissioner, and the State Trading Corporation, wherein they called upon the respondents not to withhold the allocation of unserviced raw material to which the petitioners were entitled. It is to be recalled that by an order made by the respondents the allocation of unserviced law material was suspended to the petitioners, with the consequence that the mill was likely to be closed. The main contention of the petitioners was that the statutory provision was not observed while suspending the raw material and that a principle of natural justice was involved because neither a show cause notice was given nor the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977HP35
D.B. Lal, J.1. These are six Execution Second Appeals and have been directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Solan who has upheld in appeal the judgment of the Senior Sub-Judge and thereby dismissed the objections of the appellant preferred under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, The facts arising out of these appeals are not controverted and may, in brief, be stated as follows.2. Under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, a dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent in respect of certain demand placed by the respondent upon the appellant and such disputes were referred to arbitration and awards were given against the respondent. Under Section 63 (a) of the Act the awards were deemed to be a decree of a civil court and were executed in the same manner as decree of such court. Accordingly the execution was solicited in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge and after the necessary step of attachment etc., the property belonging to the appellant was likel...
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!