Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : [2002]111CompCas763(HP)
Surinder Sarup, J.1. The Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., hereinafter to be called 'the plaintiff-Corporation', has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 23,77,049.55 along with interest, costs, etc., against defendants Nos. 1 to 3. It may be stated here that the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation has also been impleaded as proforma defendant No. 4 in the suit.2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-Corporation through its managing director, one Shri Yogesh Khanna at the relevant time, being also the principal officer, stated to be competent to file the suit on its behalf.3. The facts, as pleaded, giving rise to the cause of action are that defendant No. 1 through its directors, i.e., defendants Nos. 2 and 3, applied to the plaintiff-Corporation for the grant of term loan of Rs. 21.49 lakhs for the construction of the factory building, purchase of land and plant and machinery, for setting up an industrial unit for the manufacture of intraveno...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1990ACJ647
Bhawani Singh, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the same accident and common award. They were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. 2. Briefly, the facts are that bus No. HPN 594, owned by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), was being driven by a driver. As soon as the bus reached a place 3 kilometres away from Mandi towards Shimla on 28.8.1980, it met with an accident at 3.30 a.m. According to the claimants, the accident was due to the rash and negligent acts of the respondents. The driver of the vehicle was driving it at an excessive speed. He was negligent as well besides being under the influence of liquor.3. On the other hand, the respondents had denied the rashness and negligence attributed to the driver. They say that the accident was on account of the sudden failure of the lighting system in the bus which could not be discovered by use of reasonable care. The defect, they contended, was latent one which no...
Tag this Judgment!