Skip to content


Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Firm Balwant Singh Jaswant Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Limitation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 75 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1957P& H27
ActsIndian Independence (Rights, Property and Laibilities) Order, 1947; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 20; Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 5
AppellantUnion of India (Uoi);firm Balwant Singh Jaswant Singh
RespondentFirm 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.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredChaman Lal Loona & Co. v. Dominion of India
Excerpt:
.....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.
Judgment:
ORDER

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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //