Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: re entry permit Court: himachal pradesh Page 12 of about 2,017 results (0.023 seconds)

Aggarwal and Company Vs. State of H.P.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2000HP1

..... held that where a party is aware that by reason of some disability the matter is legally incapable of being submitted to arbitration, participates in the arbitration proceedings without protest and fully avails of the entire arbitration proceedings cannot be permitted to challenge such arbitration proceedings at a subsequent stage on finding that the award has gone against him. ..... he shall also not permit the parties to lead any additional evidence. .....

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tikma Devi and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 1998ACJ872

..... the liability arising out of use otherwise than under a public carrier's permit was not covered by the terms of the policy. ..... in that case the owner of the goods vehicle permitted carrying of 68 persons along with their goods in the vehicle on payment. ..... the goods vehicle, a public carrier, was not covered by any permit on the date of accident. .....

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhalu Devi and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : II(1998)ACC433,1998ACJ210

..... one of the following conditions, namely:(i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle-(a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or(b) for organised racing and speed testing, or(c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or(d) without side-car being attached, where the vehicle is a motor cycle;14. ..... apparently under sub-clause (b)(i) of sub-section (2) of section 96 of the act, breach of a specified condition of the insurance policy excluding the use of the vehicle for the purposes stated under sub-clauses (a) to (d) permit the insurance company to deny their liability but the question arises whether the limitations as to use as 'agriculture tractor only' as put in the insurance policy, exh. .....

Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. Ram Kishan and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2008ACJ2563,2008(1)ShimLC437

..... lal who had been impleaded as owner could not be served and thereafter the petitioner filed an application under order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 cpc praying that she may be permitted to amend the petition and convert the same from one under section 166 to one under section 163-a of the act. ..... motor vehicles act and has also filed a petition under section 140 of the motor vehicles act and an award has been passed in its favour under section 140 can be permitted to convert the original petition filed under section 166 to a petition under section 163-a of the motor vehicles actfactual matrix2. ..... high court held that there is no bar to conversion of a petition filed under section 166 to a petition under section 163-a but the same cannot be permitted after an order has been passed on the application under section 140 of the act.16 ..... her option which option has fructified into a legal and binding award cannot now be permited to retract and convert the petition to one under section 163-a of the act ..... contends that section 163-b is absolutely clear and once the option to file claim is exercised and claim under section 140 is filed and an award is passed, the petitioner cannot be permitted to convert the petition to one under section 163-a of the act.case law.8. ..... . 2, insurance company is justified in opposing the application for amendment to permit the appellant to convert the original claim petition to be as one under section 163-a instead of section 166 as had been filed and praying .....

Om Parkash Vs. Sureshta Devi

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : I(1990)DMC127

..... sub-rule (5) of rule 1 of order 23 reads thus :'(5) nothing in this rule shall be deemed to authorise the court to permit one of several plaintiffs to abandon a suit or part of a claim under sub-rule (1), or to withdraw, under sub-rule (3), any suit or part of a claim, without the consent of the other plaintiffs. ..... thus just as a suit or part of a claim cannot be abandoned or withdrawn by one plaintiff, one of the parties to the petition cannot be permitted to withdraw the petition or abandon the prayer without the consent of the other party. ..... 'thus, when the suit is filed by two or more plaintiffs, the court cannot permit one of the several plaintiffs to abandon a suit or part of a claim without the consent of the other plaintiffs.10. ..... sub-rule (5) of rule (1) of order 23 specifically deals with the power of the court to permit withdrawal or abandonment of a suit or part of a claim presented jointly by one or more plaintiffs. ..... it was thus prayed that in these circumstances, she may be permitted to withdraw her consent and the petition accordingly dismissed. ..... 1985, was given by her under pressure and threat by the petitioner and before giving it she was not allowed to see or meet her relations to consult them before filing the petition nor were they permitted to accompany her to the court. ..... if unilateral withdrawal of consent is permitted the court will not be able to pass a decree in an undefended case under section 23(bb) of the act. .....

State Bank of India Vs. the Central Information Commission and Another

Court : Himachal Pradesh

..... we also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an ..... it is, therefore, clear that a society which adopts openness as a value of overarching significance not only permits its citizens a wide range of freedom of expression, it also goes further in actually opening up the deliberative process of the government itself to the sunlight ..... emphasis was laid on the need, importance and significance of communicating such entries, enabling the employee to seek redressal inter alia for rectification thereof, in accordance with law, for giving a fair chance ..... adversely affects the employee in two ways (1) communication of entries makes him aware about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, affording him an opportunity to improve his work in future; (2) affords an opportunity of making a representation against the entry which he feels is unjustified, enabling him to seek revision/ ..... others, (2008) 8 scc 725, the apex court had held that every entry in the acrs of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable ..... in fact, as explained in dev dutt (supra), if the intention of making adverse entries, in the acrs of an employee, is to improve his performance, then the purpose is not achieved by keeping ..... the court ought to give to it widest operation which its language will permit. .....

Sawan Singh and ors. Vs. Radha Kishan and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1980HP8

..... that would not be a question of procedure, although while allowing or disallowing the amendment the court can always take a liberal view and may even permit the defendant to raise whatever defence he choses to take in his favour.therefore, in our opinion, it will be a question of the application of the law pointed out in rule 7 and 17 of order vi and not ..... without the court applying its mind as to whether there has been really a departure in the pleadings and as to whether the amendments should be permitted for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy, in out opinion, the mere fact that additional written statement has been permitted to be filed under rule 9 of order viii will not give a right to the defendant to raise new or inconsistent pleas, or to make ..... once the court directed the additional written statement to be filed, impliedly the court permitted the defendant to take up even inconsistent pleas without seeking for an amendment under ..... where due to amendment in the plaint, additional written statement is asked to be filed, nevertheless, a departure in the pleadings cannot be permitted under order vi, rule 7 unless amendment of the pleadings is sought for under order vi, rule 17. ..... it would by itself be a rule of law as to whether rule 7 and 17 of order vi are not required to be complied with and merely because rule 9 of order viii has been observed, a departure would be permitted in the pleadings without seeking for an amendment under rule 17 of order vi. .....

Harsarup Dass Vs. Phul Chand and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 1972CriLJ83

..... then it is stated that the nalagarh magistrate did not permit cross-examination by the applicant of the witnesses and that he gave a very short time for filing a revision petition. ..... his interest is confined only to this that he should be permitted to canvass his view-point in case the magistrate chooses to call him for evidence. ..... nalagarh did not permit the applicant to cross-examine the witnesses upon their previous statements which they made before the police. .....

Roshan Lal and ors. Vs. Kartar Chand and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2002HP131

kamlesh sharma, j.1. the appellants are the plaintiffs, whereas, respondents are the defendants and they will be referred to as such in this judgment. in this appeal under section 100, c.p.c. the plaintiffs are aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 3-1-1994 passed by the district judge, hamirpur whereby the appeal of the defendant kartar chand was accepted and decree and judgment dated 7-11-1986 of the senior sub-judge, hamirpur was set aside. the senior sub-judge, hamirpur had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were held entitled to succeed to the estate of shri sunder to the extent of 3/4th share on the basis of will dated 6-1-1969 ex. p. 2 and accordingly they were declared owners in possession thereof. the adoption deed dated 15-6-1978 ex. d. 1 gift deed dated 15-6-1978 ex. d.2 and cancellation deed dated 28-4-1980 ex. d.3 were declared null and void.2. the brief facts of the case are that one shri hushnaki was the common ancestor of the parties who was owner in possession of land measuring 403 kanals 5 marlas, situate in tika naugran, tehsil and district hamirpur. on his death his five sons, namely, s/shri munshi, sunder, khazana, thunia and sant ram inherited his estate in equal shares i.e. 1/5th share each. the plaintiffs are the successors of khazana, munshi and sant ram, whereas, the defendants are the successors of thunia. shri sunder had died issueless and dispute between the parties is in respect of his estate. according to the plaintiffs, .....

Ranjana Nagpal Alias Ranjana Malik Vs. Devi Ram and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2002HP166

..... . since the defendant themselves were guilty of inaction, they cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own inaction ..... 3, even in this appeal has been permitted to raise the question of jurisdiction and limitation, since the two questions on the basis of pleadings of the parties can be conveniently disposed of on the basis of evidence available on the record and no further evidence is required.16. ..... . mercantile law and practice permit such agreement.20 ..... the learned district judge did not permit the defendant no. .....