Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: punjab municipal act 1911 Court: rajasthan Year: 1962 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.025 seconds)

Jan 31 1962 (HC)

The State Vs. Banshilal Luhadia and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-31-1962

Reported in : AIR1962Raj250

..... is made in the statute itself. speaking, with all respect, for our part, we are not quite sure of the correctness of this approach for municipal bodies (and so also district boards) are under the relevant laws always declared to be statutory corporations having perpetual succession and a common seal and therefore ..... dwarkadas v. the king, air 1948 pc 82, madan mohan v. state of uttar pradesh, air 1954 sc 637 and jaswant singh v. state of punjab, air 1958 sc 124.7. applying this law to the present cases, on the assumption of course that a previous sanction for the prosecution of the accused ..... , on the evidence and the documents placed before him, been fully satisfied that banshilal, luhadia had committed an offence under section 5(2) of the act of 1947, we should construe the expression 'governor' as really standing for and meaning the minister in charge of the local self government who had actually ..... fortunately relieved from the onerous task of pursuing our line of reasoning adverted to above because our attention has been drawn to section 203 of the act of 1954 which, in our opinion, clinches the matter before us. this section reads as follows:'any member of a board may inspect any work ..... he was professionally interested on behalf of a client, principal or other person, or(d) being a legal practitioner in any suit or other proceeding acts or appears, on behalf of any other person, against the board or against the state government litigating in respect of nazul land entrusted to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 1962 (HC)

Firm Bilasrai Mannalal Vs. Frim Purshottam Dass Sanwaldass and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-26-1962

Reported in : AIR1962Raj247

..... in part arises there within the meaning of section 20(c), c. p. c.11. the same view was expressed by two learned single judges of the punjab high court in parma nand ganesh parshad v. firm jawahar singh tara singh, air 1952 punj 381 and dwarka dass v. brijmohan, air 1956 punj 111. in ..... . the hundis were honoured by the plaintiff and the bank then endorsed the railway receipt in his favour and delivered it to him. as the bank was acting under the instructions of the defendant, it cannot be regarded as the agent of the plaintiff. the defendant trades for profit and all the expenses which he ..... delivery to the agent of the sender himself.'15. the above observations are not applicable to the facts of the present case. here the bank was throughout acting tinder the instructions of the defendant, the goods were consigned by the defendant to self and the railway receipt was endorsed in favour of the bank at ..... the cheque in transit must fall on the sender on the specious plea that the sender having the very limited right to reclaim the cheque under the post office act, 1898, the post office was his agent, when in fact there was no such reclamation. of course, if there be no such request, express or implied ..... (a) referred to the place where the cause of action arose. it was not clear whether it meant the entire cause of action or a part of it. act no. 7 of 1888 added an explanation namely explanation iii to the section which ran as follows:'in suits arising out of a contract the cause of action .....

Tag this Judgment!


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