Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-09-1967
Reported in : AIR1968P& H277
Shamsher Bahadur, J.1. In this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, a preliminary objection has been raised that such an appeal does not lie from the order of the learned Single Judge (D.K. Mahajan J.) who on 11th of April, 1967, partially allowed the appeal preferred from the order of Shri Gyani as a Claims Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19392. A transport vehicle carrying passengers and belonging to the appellant, the Fazilka Dabwali Transport Co., (P) Ltd struck two boys. Pardeep Kumar and Devinder Singh, riding on a bicycle on 27th April 1962. One of the two boys. Pardeep Kumar received serious injuries resulting in amputation of one leg and damage to the foot of the other side The father of Pardeep Kumar claimed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed damages to him to the extent of Rs. 7000/- Devinder Singh was awarded a sum of only Rs 700. These damages were payable by the appellant, which is the owner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-03-1967
Reported in : AIR1968P& H217; 1968CriLJ775
Mehar Singh, C.J. 1-11. (After narrating facts, the judgment continues as under:--) The case then came before a Special Bench consisting of Dua. P. C. Pandit and Gurdev Singh JJ. on September 22. 1966, on which date the counsel who had been representing the petitioner reported that the petitioner had died and he was representing nobody in the case. On that the learned Judge said in their order that 'In these circumstances, we direct that notice of this case be given to the Advoratp-General so that he may assist this Court in the matter.' As the respondents ' were not present, they also issued notice to them for October 13,1986. On October 4, 1966, respondent 1 moved Criminal Miscellaneous application No. 1030 of 1906 referring to the death of the petitioner and the presence of some Judges of this Court at the funeral and then saying that 'It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in the circumstances aforesaid, your Lordships may be pleased either to direct the counsel of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!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!