Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Firm Balwant Singh Jaswant Singh - Court Judgment
|Court||Punjab and Haryana High Court|
|Case Number||Second Appeal No. 75 of 1951|
|Judge|| Bhandari, C.J.,; Falshaw and; Bishan Narain, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1957P& H27|
|Acts||Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Laibilities) Order, 1947; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 20; Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 5|
|Appellant||Union of India (Uoi);firm Balwant Singh Jaswant Singh|
|Respondent||Firm Balwant Singh Jaswant Singh;union of India (Uoi)|
|Appellant Advocate|| N.L. Salooja and; K.C. Nayar, Advs.|
|Respondent Advocate|| H.S. Gujral and; A.C. Hoshiarpuri, Advs.|
|Cases Referred||Chaman Lal Loona & Co. v. Dominion of India|
.....an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act.
sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution.
orderbhandari, c.j. and falshaw, j.1. two contrary views appear to have been expressed in regard to the interpretation of paragraph 8 of the indian independence (right, property and liabilities) order 1947, one by the calcutta high court in union of india v. lake nath saha, air 1952 cal. 140 (a) and the other in a decision this court reported as chaman lal loona & co. v. dominion of india, new delhi, air 1954 punj. 129 (b). in order to resolve the confict which has arisen it would be desirable to refer this case to a larger bench. we would order accordingly. this case will be heard at simla.
Bhandari, C.J. and Falshaw, J.
1. Two contrary views appear to have been expressed in regard to the interpretation of paragraph 8 of the Indian Independence (Right, Property and Liabilities) Order 1947, one by the Calcutta High Court in Union of India v. Lake Nath Saha, AIR 1952 Cal. 140 (A) and the other in a decision this Court reported as Chaman Lal Loona & Co. v. Dominion of India, New Delhi, AIR 1954 Punj. 129 (B). In order to resolve the confict which has arisen it would be desirable to refer this case to a larger Bench. We would order accordingly. This case will be heard at Simla.