Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1985CriLJ1030
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. An application received by one of us (Chief Justice) was registered as a writ petition. The application was made by a retired employee of the State Government who was at the time of his retirement working in the office of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hamirpur in the capacity of a clerk.2. On April 28, 1969, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The services of the petitioner were terminated on Feb. 3, 1971. The order of termination was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 61 of 1971 : Reported in ILR (1974) Him Pra 296 which was decided in favour of the petitioner on Mar. 15,1974 by a learned single Judge of this Court by quashing the termination order and giving a further direction to the effect that 'the petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service right from the date the impugned order was passed' and that 'he shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits arising as a result of the quashing of the order.'3. The decision of the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
V.P. Gupta, J.1. The only point for consideration in this case is as to whether the notification No. 4662, dated 6th March, 1917, issued under Section 8 (2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, is still alive and operative or has been impliedly repealed by substituted and amended Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act No. 10 of 1960. This question has arisen in the following circumstances:--One Dagu sold land measuring 38 kanals 12 marlas with share in Shamilat along with one house (as detailed in the plaint) situate in Tika Jagatkhana Mauza Thara, Tahsil Hamirpur, District Kangra to Santu and others, sons of Asa, respondents (defendants) by a registered sale deed, dated 28-4-1959, for Rs. 6,000.2. Gokal plaintiff (appellants are legal representatives of Gokal plaintiff) filed a suit for possession by pre-emption on the ground that he was an agnate of Dagu vendor, within four degrees and was also a co-sharer in the Khata and for this reason he had a preferential right of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
H.S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan Sessions Division, at Nahan, dated 5th Nov. 1981.2. The facts relevant to the case may be stated, Shri Palkia respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) filed a suit against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') and pro forma-respondent No. 2 for the possession of land in suit, by pre-emption on the basis of his being a co-sharer with pro forma-respondent No. 2. It may be pointed out that the respondent No. 2 had sold the land in suit to the defendants. As such, respondent No. 2 was also impleaded as a pro forma-defendant. The learned Senior Sub Judge, Nahan, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on 29th' Oct. 1979, on the ground that since a partition had taken place between the plaintiff and the defendants, the status of the plaintiff as a co-sharer stood extinguished. The plaintiff preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
ORDERV.P. Gupta, J.1. Aggrieved from the order Dt. 7-6-1980 passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Mandi, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed this revision petition.2. The facts briefly are that the plaintiff (now petitioner) filed a suit on 27-10-1975, in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Mandi, for a decree of declaration to the effect that he had perfected his title as an owner of the disputed land (described in the plaint) by adverse possession or in the alternative for declaration that he was entitled to the benefit of Rule 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules, 1954. Only State of Himachal Pradesh (now respondent No. 4) was a defendant and the suit was contested by the State denying the plaintiff's claim.3. Issues in the case were framed on 26-12-1977 and five witnesses of the plaintiff were also recorded. On 24-10-1979, the plaintiff was allowed last opportunity to produce his remaining evidence, and the case was adjourned to 26-12-1979.4. On 17-12-1979, Roop Singh (now respondent No. 1)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
T.R. Manda, J.1. The petitioner Shri Ramji Dass filed a suit against the respondents for the recovery of Rs. 500/- in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nalagarh. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23-11-1968 decreed that suit as prayed in favour of the petitioner. An appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was preferred by respondent No. 1 in the Court of the District Judge, Simla. This appeal was admitted by the District Judge on 24-12-1968. The learned District Judge accepted the appeal, reversed the decree of the trial Court and vide his judgment dated 25-7-1969 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff- petitioner.2. The petitioner then filed regular second appeal in this Court against the appellate judgment of the District Judge. That appeal was registered as R. S. A. No. 3 of 1970 in this Court. Later on realizing that in view of the express provisions of Section 42 (2) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 which was then in force, no second appeal could li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
H.S. Thakur, J.1. M.S.A. No. 8 of 1972 has been referred to a Pull Bench by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice (T. U. Mehta) by an order dated 3rd July, 1979. At the time of hearing, M.S.A. No. 9 of 1972 was also connected with M.S.A. No. 8 of 1972. It is desirable to reproduce the said order:'In this case, on behalf of the appellant, two point are submitted, namely (1) the original appellant Durga Dart has died pending this M.S.A. and, therefore, according to the decision given by this Court in Chuhatli v. Bratu reported in ILR (1975) Him Pra 579, the application of the tenant under Section 11 has become in fructuous, and (2) the ownership rights in favour of the tenant cannot be granted in view of the fact that one of the co-owners Durga Datt was physically incapable. In support of this proposition reliance is placed on the decision given by a Division Bench of this Court in Paras Ram v. Bhuru, reported in ILR (1973) Him Pra 31.I have perused both these decisions and in my opinion both o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1982HP62
ORDERH.S. Thakur, J.1. In this revision petition, Shri Tilka Raj petitioner has assailed the order of the learned District Judge, Mandi, Kulu and Lahaul Spiti districts, at Mandi, dated 23rd of April, 1980, who upheld the order of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, dated 27th November, 1979, appointing Shri Amar Chand Sharma as receiver.2. The facts and circumstances as they emerge from the record may be stated.3. The dispute between the parties relates to a shop situated in Chohatta Bazar, Mandi. The petitioner filed an application under Section 145 Cr. P. C. on 24th April, 1978, alleging that the respondents overlooked the disputed shop in his absence on 1st April, 1978 and were threatening him that in case he entered the shop he would be killed. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned after passing the preliminary order under Section 145 Cr. P. C. recorded the evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the actual possession of the shop was with the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1982CriLJ294
T.R. Handa, J.1. Shri Hari Ram appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1976,-was accused of and tried for the offences tinder Section 120-B, 409 read with Sections 109 and 467, IPC by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. The learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment recorded ort 28-8-1976 acquitted this appellant of the offences Under Section 120-B as also Under Section 409 read with Section 109, IPC but convicted him for the other offence Under Section 467, IPC For this conviction Shri Hari Ram appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1976 has been filed by Shri Hari Ram convict against the aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing him for the offence Under Section 467, T. P. C. Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1977 has been preferred by the State against the order of the learned Sessions Judge in so far as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1982HP50
T.R. Handa, J. 1. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 against the respondents. The learned Tribunal vide its award dated 29-6-1974 dismissed that claim of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has now approached this Court in appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The case for the appellant is that on 16-6-1968 at about 5 p.m. he along with his two friends Balbinder Singh son of Shri Dogar Singh (P.W. 2) and Sukh-dev Singh (P.W. 3) proceeded from Nan-gal towards Una in private car No. PNU 6483 belonging to his father. The appellant was himself driving the said car. Near a village known as Jalgran which falls between Nangal and Una and is about 1'6 kilometres from Nangal, the car of the appellant developed some mechanical trouble on account of which the appellant stopped the vehicle and parked it on the kacha road on his left side. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1447
H.S. Thakur, J.1. The following question has been referred to this Division Bench for decision:Whether it is open to a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code on the basis of a police report submitted before him by the police after formation of the opinion that in view of the material collected during the course of investigation, no case is made out for sending the accused for trial.2. The facts and circumstances under which the question has arisen may be briefly stated. One Basant Lai lodged the First Information Report No. 58 on 9th June, 1977, at Police Station, Theog, alleging offence under Section 348, I.P.C. against the present petitioners. As a result of the investigation conducted in the case, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the case against the petitioners was politically motivated and that the allegations made in the FIR were all false. The Investigating Officer prepared his report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. ...
Tag this Judgment!