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 : AIR2005HP37
M.R. Verma, J.1. This order is meant to dispose of the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent regarding maintainability of the present appeal.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the said preliminary objection are that predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-plaintiffs (hereafter referred to as 'the respondents') instituted a suit against the appellant defendant (hereafter referred to as 'the appellant') for rendition of accounts and recovery of the due amount i.e. Rs. 15,000/-. The trial Court decreed the suit for rendition of accounts to the extent of Rs. 1,000/-. The respondents preferred an appeal which -was allowed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur and a decree for recovery of Rs. 14,000/- along with interest was passed in favour of the respondents against the appellant. The aggrieved appellant preferred the present appeal. The Memorandum of Appeal was initially filed on 22-12-2001, however, it was held under various objecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1987HP14
V.P. Bhatnagar, J. 1. This order is meant to dispose of Regular First Appeal No. 10 of 1975 as well as Regular First Appeal No. 61 of 1975. Both appeals have arisen as a result of the award made by the learned District Judge, Shimla on 23-8-1974. The Regular First Appeal No. 10 of 1975 has been preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh whereas Regular First Appeal No. 61 of 1975 by Shri Liaq Ram whose land was acquired. 2. The controversy between the parties has been considerably shortened inasmuch as the learned Advocate General who has argued this case on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh and Shri Kailash Chand, Advocate representing Shri Liaq Ram have both submitted during the course of arguments that the only point which required determination for the purpose of disposing these appeals is about the correct valuation of 58 apple trees standing on Khasra No. 60971 belonging to Shri Liaq Ram. It is also the case of both the parties that the area of the aforesaid Khasra number i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1994HP5
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. The order passed on 25th July, 1991 by the Additional District Judge, Nahan, Sirmaur District Camp at Solan, is under challenge in this revision petition at the behest of the plaintiffs, who were respondents in the appeal before the lower appellate court. The facts giving rise to the revision petition may be narrated. 2. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners in the court of Sub Judge, Kandaghat, wherein they claimed a decree for declaration that they, along with pro forma defendants, are the owners in possession of the suit land according to the shares, as per Shajra Nasab and the entries in the revenue record as also certain mutations were illegal, against facts and had no effect on their rights and also that they along with pro forma defendants alone had got a right to get compensation in respect . of the part of the suit property, which had been acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh. After a protracted trial, the suit was decreed on 22nd June, 1987...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1986HP23
H.S. Thakur, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court who dismissed the second appeal preferred by the appellants.2. Material facts to determine this Letters Patent Appeal may be stated. The appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter to be referred to as the defendants) for declaration that the 'Pirsthan' or Dargah property known as 'Pirnigahia' as detailed in the head note of the plaint is a place of worship and a Dargah,dedicated tor pious and religious purposes recognized by the Muslim Law and that it fell within the definition of 'Wakf as contained in the Wakf Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) and that on the enforcement of the Act, the property had vested in the plaintiff-Wakf Board. It was stated that the mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendant-Gram Panchayat, of the said property was wrong and illegal. H was furth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008ACJ1181,2006(2)ShimLC232
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. On this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Insurer of the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident coming up for consideration today, Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 - claimants submits and states before me that he is not in a position to defend the legality and correctness of the impugned Award in as much as the learned Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction vesting in him under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and on that ground alone, the Award deserves to be set aside. Mr. Thakur, however, also submitted that because of the aforesaid patently technical defect in the Award, suffering as it does from the error of jurisdiction relating to Section 163-A of the Act, claimants-respondents No. 1 to 4 be permitted to approach the Tribunal with a prayer for amendment of MAC Petition No. 95/2001 (having been originally filed under Section 163-A of the Act) to convert it into a regular claim p...
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!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972HP37
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. Each of the two petitioners before us complains of denial, on similar grounds, of admission into the Medical College. Simla, run by the Government of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the College). As questions of fact and law common to both the cases arose, they were connected and argued together, and will be disposed of by a single judgment.2. Both petitioners, about 17 years In age at the time of applying for admission, submitted that they had complied with the conditions given in the Rules contained in the prospectus of the college for the year 1970-71 so that they were entitled to be considered for admission by the Selection Board.3. The prospectus for 1970-71 gives the objectives of the teaching programme of the college as follows:--'1. To enable the students to prepare for general practice of medicine together with an understanding of the patient as an individual who is an integral part of the society.2. To help develop firm foundations of scientific ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(3)ShimLC167
1. A challenge has been laid by medium of this Letters Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9.5.2008.2. Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9.5.2008 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also contends that his client had acquired vested right to raise the construction on the basis of permission accorded by the Municipal Corporation on 27.3.1993, which was renewed from time to time and according to him the subsequent notifications issued by the State Government under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 on 11.8.2000 and 22.8.2002 are prospective in nature.3. The learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate have supported the judgment dated 9.5.2008.4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings.5. It will be apt at this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1991ACJ825
Devinder Gupta, J.1. A common question of law, which arises for determination in these Letters Patent Appeals, is as to whether the payment made by the State Government under the Scheme known as 'Himachal Pradesh Scheme for the payment of ex gratia grant to a passenger' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), previously known as 'Himachal Pradesh Passenger Insurance Scheme' framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 3-A of the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (Act No. 15 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Passengers and Goods Taxation Act') and the amount paid by the appellant, namely, the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, by way of interim relief immediately after an accident is liable to be deducted from out of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (as replaced by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act').2. The State legislature e...
Tag this Judgment!