Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: sashastra seema bal act 2007 section 6 enrolment Sorted by: recent Court: himachal pradesh Page 14 of about 577 results (0.208 seconds)

Ashok Chopra Vs. Neelam Rana

Court : Himachal Pradesh

..... substantive rights and substantial justice. the humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in judges to act ex debito justiciae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable.... justice is the goal of jurisprudence processual, as much as substantive.9. in state of punjab and anr .....

Nanhe Mukhia Vs. State of H.P.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Surjit Singh, J.1. Appellant Nanhe Mukhia has appealed against his conviction and sentence, for offences, under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code, awarded by the Sessions Court at Hamirpur. 2. Appellant was tried for the aforesaid offences, on the allegations that on 18th October, 2007, he went to Nadaun Township, in Hamirpur District, and purchased one cassette for Rs. 30/- from PW-1 Mukesh Kumar. He tendered a currency note of Rs. 500/-. Mukesh Kumar asked for exact amount, as he did not have the change of Rs. 500/-. Appellant told him that he did not have currency notes of smaller denomination. PW-1 Mukesh Kumar then went to one Ravi, who is running Chemist's shop nearby, to get the currency note of Rs. 500/- changed into notes of smaller denomination. Said Ravi, on seeing the note, said that the same was not genuine. The currency note was then taken to a nearby Bank and shown to an official of the Bank, who confirmed that the same was not genuine. 3. Police was info...

Kuldeep Singh Vs. Smt. Chand Rani

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2010HP14,2009(2)ShimLC368

..... without any reasonable cause? opp 2. whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this petition? opr 3. whether there is a bar under section 23 of hindu marriage act? if so, its effect? opr 4. whether the petition is not in accordance with hindu marriage and divorce rules? if so, its effect? opr 5. whether the petitioner ..... additional district judge, fast track court, kangra at dharamshala, dated 5.6.2007, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under section 13 of the hindu marriage act, hereinafter referred to as the act, for grant of decree of divorce in favour of the appellant/petitioner. 2. brief facts of the case are that a petition under section 13 of the ..... act was filed by the petitioner for grant of decree of divorce. the petitioner alleged that their marriage was performed on 29.11.1983. the parties lived together as husband .....

Malkiat Singh and anr. and Jasbir Singh Vs. State of H.P.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2010CriLJ635

..... the accused in his statement. the mere exhibiting the document or telling names of the witnesses is not sufficient to prove a disclosure statement under section 27 of the evidence act. 24. coming to the two witnesses to the disclosure statement, the prosecution had examined only one of them kewal singh, up-pradhan, while the other witness ramesh singh, had not .....

Bharat Bhushan Vs. P.S. Raju

Court : Himachal Pradesh

..... pointed out any provision from the act which puts a bar for converting a non-residential building into a residential building. the bar under section 12 is not absolute even for conversion of ..... premises. it has been submitted that conversion of non-residential building into residential building is not permissible. the section 12 of h.p. urban rent control act, 1987 puts a bar for converting the residential building into a non-residential building except with the permission in writing of the controller. the petitioner has not ..... what extent? opp.2. whether the premises are bonafidely required by the petitioner for rebuilding and reconstruction as alleged? opp.3. whether the respondent has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building as alleged? opp.4. whether the petition is not maintainable? opd.5. whether the .....

State of H.P. and anr. Vs. Methi Devi and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

..... . thus, it is clear that the collector, by his conduct, had rather refused to pass the award for fruit bearing trees within the time allowed by the act and it leads to the inference that he had declined to pass an award separately for fruit bearing trees and, therefore, the petitioners were within their rights to apply ..... for the acquisition of the land shall lapse : provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the land acquisition (amendment) act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. explanation. - in computing the period of two years referred to in this section ..... appellant are that the appellant/state acquired the land of the respondents for the construction of breon link road. the notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act was issued on 11.4.1996 and the same was published in himachal pradesh rajpatra on 18.5.1996. the land acquisition collector (hereinafter referred to as the .....

Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

..... the arguments were heard in this case on 18.5.2009 and the judgment was reserved. thereafter, it was noticed that the sentence passed under section 18 of the act for keeping in possession the opium by the appellant was inadequate, therefore, notice of enhancement was ordered to be given to the appellant, which was accepted by the ..... the appellant was also held guilty for the offence punishable under section 20 of the act, for allegedly found in possession, charas more than the small quantity and less than the commercial quantity, as such, sentenced to undergo to rigorous imprisonment for a ..... rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of rs. 2,000/-under section 18 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985, in short 'the act' and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, keeping possession 145 gms. of opium and .....

Dharam Singh and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

..... the proceedings under the himachal pradesh holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1971 commenced in the year 1989 and culminated in the year 1990. this position could not be altered by the order passed by the director consolidation ..... by the divisional commissioner on 18.2.1986. the petitioners were given the proprietary rights under the provisions of the himachal pradesh tenancy and land reforms act, 1972. they have come into possession of the respective area of which the proprietary rights were conferred upon them. their rights were further determined when ..... commissioner on 18.2.1986 (annexure p-2). the respondents preferred revision petition under section 54 of the himachal pradesh holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1971 on 8.10.2003 before the director consolidation of holdings himachal pradesh. he allowed the revision on 9.1.2004.2. mr. ajay sharma, .....

The United India Insurance Co. Vs. Ranjit Singh and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

..... for the parties and also perused the record. 10. the appeal has been filed only by the insurer. importantly, the application filed by the insurer under section 170 of the act was dismissed by the court below. 11. it is an undisputed position that an fir ext.pw-2/a dated 9.12.2005 was registered against the said shri sandeep ..... attributable to the respondent shri sandeep kumar. 3. the claimants i.e the husband and the children filed a petition under section 166 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), claiming compensation of rs. 7 lacs on account of the death of their predecessor-in- interest, smt. parkasho devi who died in a motor accident which took .....

Ramji Dass Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC397

..... learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petition filed by the respondent no. 4 had not been properly verified in accordance with the provisions of the panchayati raj act. we find that no such plea was raised before the deputy commissioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise this argument at this stage.10. ..... removal but this does not mean that while laying down the disqualifications the state legislature could not club two or more similar disqualifications together. in fact, as the act originally stood, only persons who had been dismissed from service were disqualified. by an amendment brought out in the year 2002 the employees who had been removed ..... liable to be quashed and secondly that the election petition had not been verified in accordance with the provisions of section 164 of the h.p. panchayati raj act.5. as far as the first contention is raised, shri adarsh vashistha, learned vice counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on rule 11 of the central .....