Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-31-1966
Reported in : AIR1967P& H166; [1967(14)FLR439]; (1967)IILLJ558P& H
..... the union parliament.1. sections 17 and 48(2)(f) of the life insurance act 31 of 1956.2. section 68(2)(b) and (j) of the motor vehicles act iv of 1939.3. section 56(2)(r), administration of evacuee property act 31 of 1950, and 4. section 28(2)(c) of the representation of the people act 43 of 1950. statutes enacted by the punjab state legislature.1. section 27(2)(r) of the east punjab general sales tax act 46 of 1948.2. section 22(2)(1) of ..... us relates to the vires of rule 17 framed by the punjab state government under section 96(1)(b) of the employees' state insurance act, 1948 (hereinafter described as the act) fixing a period of one year as the period of limitation for an application under section 75 of the act. the appeal has been referred to a full bench because the correctness of a bench decision of this court in chanan singh v. regional director employees state insurance corporation, ilr 1963 (2) punj 11: (air 1963 punj 422), is being ..... challenged by the employees state insurance corporation, respondent before us.2. it is unnecessary to state the facetaoin detail. suffice it to say that the employees' state insurance corporation (respondent in this court) through its regional director submitted an application under section 75(2) of the act to the employees insurance court for the recovery of rs. 2,316.46 np as employees' contribution .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-25-1966
Reported in : AIR1967P& H279; (1969)ILLJ679P& H
I.D. Dua, J.1. These two writ petitions (C. W. No. 504 of 1964 presented by Shri K.R. Erry and C. W. No. 723 of 1965 presented by Shri Sobhag Rai Mehta) were heard together by a Division Bench consisting of S. B. Capoor, J. and myself and were referred to a larger Bench by one order. C. W. No. 504 of 1964, was initially referred to a larger Bench by Shamsher Bahadur, J. on 27-5-1965 and C. W. No. 723 of 1965 was directed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice (Falshaw, C. J.) on 24-11-1965 to be heard along with C. W. No. 504 of 1964 because the learned counsel for the petitioner had represented that the points arising in the two petitions were identical. This is how these two writ petitions have been placed for hearing before this Bench.2. The broad facts of the case of Shri K.R. Erry (C. W. No. 504 of 1964) are stated in the order of the learned Single Judge and the facts of both the cases, in so far as their broad features are concerned are given in the order of the Division Bench. I woul...
Tag this Judgment!