Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.77 seconds)

Union Of India And Anr. vs Landra Engineering And Foundry Works ... on 15 December, 1961

The learned Judge disagreed with the view taken by the Madras High Court in Narayanswami Iyer v. Union of India, AIR 1960, Mad 58 and relied on certain decisions of the Orissa, Patna and Andhra High Courts, which were also cited before us. These decisions are clearly no authority for the proposition that under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure, two notices are necessary as contended on behalf of the appellant. They are concerned with Secs. 77 and 80 of the Railways Act and, therefore, nothing more need be said about them.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 9 - I D Dua - Full Document

R.Devi vs Tmt.S.Lakshmi on 31 March, 2010

The observations of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of P.R. Narayanaswami Iyer v. Union of India6 also lend support to the above view. It may be stated that the reasoning employed in the cases mentioned above was different and not identical, but whatever might be the nature of that reasoning the fact remains that the learned Judges deciding those cases were all at one on the point that such a suit should be brought against the Government, which means in the present case the Union of India. Any contrary view would be against the well-established practice and procedure of law, as evidenced by various decisions of the High Courts, and as such, must be rejected."
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document
1