Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-02-1967
Reported in : (1968)ILLJ66P& H
A.N. Graver, J.1. Seven appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent (Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255 and 256 of 1963) shall stand disposed of by this judgment.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by counsel for respondents that all these appeals are barred by limitation. The period of limitation prescribed for filing such appeals is thirty days from the date of the judgment appealed from under Rule 4 contained in Chap. 1A of Vol. V of the Rules and Orders of this Court. That rule, however, provides that Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act governs an appeal under the Letters Patent and the appellant in such a case is entitled to exclude the 'time requisite' for obtaining a copy of the judgment appealed against (whether such copy is filed or not) even though under the rules of the Court no copy of the judgment is required to be filed with the memorandum of appeal. On he half Of the appellant, it has been claimed that the copies were applied for, by me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-19-1967
Reported in : AIR1968P& H450
..... must be referred to, is guru gobinda basu v. sankari parshad ghosal, air 1964 sc 254. in this case the question arose, whether a chartered accountant, who was a partner of the firm of auditors which firm acted as auditors for the life insurance corporation of india. the durgapur projects limited and the hindustan steel limited, held an office of profit under the state. it was held that the accountant held an office of profit because the companies -- the durgapur projects limited and the ..... factor. it has not been shown that the appellant's appointment as a mohatmim (manager) of the school satisfies any of the tests which have been discussed above. on the other hand on march 1, 1956, he was holding his appointment under a committee which is a statutory body and such appointment cannot be called an appointment by or under the control of the government of india nor is his salary paid out of the revenues of ..... 43 community development programme: (1) within the area subject to its authority, a panchayal samiti shall be the agent of the government for formulation and execution of the community development programme financed out of grants made by the government to the panchayal samiti in this behalf. (2) where the government decides to advance loans under the community development programme to persons within the area of a panchayat samiti, such loans shall be disbursed by the panchayat samiti to such persons as it thinks fit on the terms and conditions applicable to such loans'. sections .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-22-1967
Reported in : AIR1968P& H242
A.N. Grover, J. 1. The facts necessary for determination of the question which has been referred to the Full Bench may be succinctly stated. Gurbachan Singh and Ban-shi Ram were allotted portions of a house in Ludhiana. Both these persons laid claims to the transfer of the whole house which was acquired as evacuee property. According to Banshi Ram, he was entitled to the transfer of the whole house under Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 on the ground that he was holder of a verified claim. Gurbachan Singh asserted that Banshi Ram was a non-claimant and, therefore. Rule 31 was applicable under which he (Gurbachan Singh) would be entitled to the transfer, being in possession of the larger portion of the house. It is common ground that there was no verified claim in the name of Banshi Ram. The claim of his father Sat Ram Das had been verified, but he was allottee of another house. On the death of Sat Ram Das the share of Banshi Ram in the clai...
Tag this Judgment!