Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing L.G. Lakshmana Iyer And Ors. vs S. Pachiappa Mudaliar, A Firm Of Cloth ... on 22 September, 1960

Parkash Chand vs S.S. Grewal And Ors. on 18 February, 1974

From these observations it is quite clear that when the dismissal of a Government servant is declared to be illegal, void or ineffective, a declaration as to his legal stains of having remained a Government servant throughout is given as if the order of dismissal never existed. The result is that he is restored to his status of a Government servant and becomes entitled to enjoy all the benefits and privileges including emoluments for the entire period during which his dismissal remained in operation subject to the law of limitation or other defences open to the Government. Such a question was raised before a .Division Bench of this Court in L. G. Danerum v. State of (Delhi, L. P A. No. 9CKD of 1961, decided on March 8, 1963, and Falshaw, Section 4, speak;ng'for the Bench, made the following pertinent observations:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Globe Transport Corporation vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 16 September, 1988

7. On the first question learned counsel for the plaintiffs laid stress under Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act which speaks of appropriation of specific or ascertained goods as the test for passing of the title. He contended that once the goods are specific or ascertained goods, the title passes to the purchaser. He referred to NencyKasi Viswanatham v. Gadigay Sanna Lingappa Dakappa and L.G. Lakshmana Iyer v. S. Pachiappa Mudaliar AIR 1961 Madras 343. The first case is not a case where the R.R. was taken in the name of the vendor. But the goods were despatched to the defendant after receiving some price and the balance of price should be collected from the bank. The second case is positively a case where the consignor took the R.R. 'self but endorsed in the name of the purchaser and despatched the goods. Hence those two cases are of no assistance to the plaintiff.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1