Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(33)PTC339(NULL)
Surjit Singh, J.1. The present petition, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 94(e) and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of temporary injunction, has been moved by the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2005.2. Facts, relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be noticed. The plaintiff/petitioners have filed a suit seeking grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from infringing Patent No. 195917, in respect of a device of manually hauling of agriculture produce, granted in their favour on 11.7.2005. It is alleged that the invention was conceptualized visualized by the plaintiff/petitioners in the year 1999. The application for grant of patent was moved on 24.5.2002 and the patent, after making all the necessary inquiries and observance of the procedure, prescribed under the Patents Act and the rules framed thereunder, was granted on 11.7.2005. The patented device is an improvement over a local product known as 'Kilta' mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008HP23,LC2008(2)370,2008(36)PTC938,2007(3)ShimLC324
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in OMP No. 530 of 2005 in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2005 rejecting the prayer of the appellants-plaintiffs for grant of interim relief.2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the appellants, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, filed a suit seeking grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from infringing Patent No. 195917 granted in favour of the plaintiffs on 11-7-2005. The patent has been granted in respect of a device used for manufacture of manually hauling the agricultural produce. According to the plaintiffs, the invention was visualized by them in 1999. They developed it over a period of time and applied for grant of patent on 24-5-2000. The patent was granted in their favour on 11-7-2005 but it will relate back to the date of application i.e. 24-5-2002. The invention of the plaintiffs as set out by them in the plaint is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1998HP46
M.N. Rao, C.J.1. This is an unusual writ petition with hardly any parallel. The State of Himachal Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Department of Health is seeking judicial review of the action of the Central Government represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Medical Council of India represented by its Secretary, New Delhi, concerning permission for a Medical College --Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College, it wants to establish at Tanda in Kangra District with an annual intake of 50 students in the first year, the academic year 1997-98. 2. The State of Himachal Pradesh comprises mountainous terrain of 55,693 sq. km. with 19388 villages scattered all over the State and most of the inhabitants are of tribal and rural background. For the entire State there is only one medical college Indira Gandhi Medical College established in 1960 in the capital city Shimla, long before the State of Himachal Pradesh came into being. The annual intake for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1989HP59
R.S. Thakur, J.1. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows : --The appellant, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, is Suraj Kund Temple deity at Sunder Nagar, which instituted a suit through is Managing Committee, known as temple committee consisting of two members S/Shri Basant Singh and Kali Dass and Thakur Dass, being its Secretary, was authorised to prosecute the suit on behalf of the deity though the plaint has been signed and verified by one of its members, i.e., Shri Kali Dass as well. One of the defendants in that suit was, amongst others, one Hari Krishan, defendant 1, and the averments in the plaint were that though the property belonged to the deity, which was the subject matter of the suit but was improperly and illegally alienated in favour of defendant Hari Krishan by the State of Himachal Pradesh or its predecessor-in-interest and a declaratory decree was sought to the effect that this alienation was void and the possession in respect of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2002ACJ1146
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. It is proposed to dispose of all these appeals and cross-objections by a common judgment as they have arisen out of the same accident and were disposed of by a common award passed by the Tribunal below.2. Facts regarding which learned Counsel for the parties were not at variance at the time of hearing of these appeals are that the bus bearing registration No. HPN 984 was on its way from Renukaji to Nahan town on 21.7.1993. Respondent Ram Par-kash was its driver. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (H.R.T.C. for short), was the owner of this bus. When it reached near Do-Sardka at about 12.45 p.m. on Nahan Road, it met with an accident. Claimants in all these cases (as well as other cases which were filed and settled before the Tribunal below), pleaded that this was due to excessive speed at which the bus was being driven. And also because driver lost control. This resulted in bus going off the road. It rolled down and fell 100 ft. below the road. A number of person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1985HP82
H.S. Thakur, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Single Judge (M. R. Ansari, J.), dated May 19, 1970. The appellant in the present appeal is the defendant in the suit whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs. The appellant shall hereinafter he referred to as the 'defendant' and the respondents as the 'plaintiffs'.2. A few facts relevant to decide this appeal may be stated. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they were in possession of the suit property as its owners and, in the alternative, for possession of the suit property. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit property originally belonged to one Onkar Singh. He died on March 20, 1933 and. on his death, the property was inherited by his widow Smt. Giano Devi, the defendant, as a life tenant and mutation was attested in her favour on April 22, 1933. Four or five years after the death of Onkar Singh, the defendant contracted a second marriage with one Girdh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1997ACJ1204,AIR1997HP21
Arunkumar Goel, J.1. This appeal is filed by Manjit Singh-(hereinafter referred to as the 'Owner') against the award passed by Shri B.D. Sharraa, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-11, Sirmour district at Nahan in Claim Petition No, 16-N/2 of 1991. Respondents Rattan Singh and Jai Devi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claimants') filed a claim petition against the owner Shamsher Ali (hereinafter referred to as the 'driver') and National Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurer'), wherein compensation in the sum of Rs. one lakh was claimed on account of death of the daughter of the claimants Kumari Sunita. According to claimants on 20-10-1990 at 2.30 p.m. Kumari Sunita, deceased was travelling in a truck bearing registration No. HPN-1495 belonging to the owner and the said truck was being driven by the driver at the relevant point of time when it was insured with the Insurer. Further case of the claimants was that the deceased was a fare paying passenger in the truck and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
T. Ramabhadran, J.C. (1) This is an appeal under Section 39 (1) (vi) of the Indian Arbitration Act. It arises under the following circumstances:--On 30-6-1945 A. D., the erstwhile Darbar of Sirmur State granted a monopoly in favour of Professor Harcharan Das in respect of cultivation and collection of medicinal herbs within Sirmur State, to enable him to manufacture drugs therefrom, and dispose of the same, either within the State, Or by export outside the State. The monopoly rights were to hold good for a period of 20 years, subject to the condition that the Professor floated a Private Limited Company with a capital of Rs. 10,00,000/- after obtaining the necessary permission from the Examiner of the Capital Issues, Government of India. Half the capital was to be raised within Sirmur State and the rest from British India. On 18-9-1945, A. D., a formal agreement was entered into by the Sirmur Darbar, on one side, and Prof. Harcharan Das, on the other, which, inter alia, recorded the mon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1997HP51
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. I. PREFACE :This petition was filed by a Professor of H.P. University who was in service, at the time when it was filed, in Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla. The prayer in the petition is to declare the amendments made by the Himachal Pradesh University Amendment) Act. 1983 to Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970 as illegal, ultra vires, prompted by wrong information, based on erroneous presumptions, a fraud on the Legislature, inconsistent with and repugnant to the objects of the principal Act, violative of the basic structure and essential features of the constitution of the University, a source of confusion and contradictions, lending to convert an autonomous institution into an agency or instrumentality of the State, harmful to the public interest, and quash the same. There is also another prayer to declare illegal and ultra vires the amendments in Sections 8 and 12 of the First Statutes of the University brought in by a notification No.3-l/76-HPU(Genl)Vol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2006HP4,2006(1)ARBLR510(HP)
ORDERK.C. Sood, J.1. The order will dispose of OMPs No. 32 and 57 of 2004 in Civil Suit. No. 52 of 2003 and OMPs No. 12 and 56 of 2004 in Civil Suit No. 51 of 2003 as parties in both the suits are same and one of the questions raised is same in both the suits.2. O.M.P. No. 32 of 2004 is filed by the defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring the dispute raised in Civil Suit No. 52 of 2003 to the Arbitration. By OMP No. 57 of 2004 in Civil 3uil No. 52 of 2003 and 58 of 2004 in Civil Suit No. 51 of 2003 under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code, the plaintiffs pray for closing the defence of the defendant for having failed to file the written statement within the time limited under Order 8, Rule1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. OMP No. 12 of 2004 (Civil Suit No. 51 of 2003) is filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint.3. Plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 52 of 2003 is M/s. Shobit Construction and another and in Civil Suit No. 51 of 2003 is Shobit Fab...
Tag this Judgment!