Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.98 seconds)The Police Act, 1949
Section 240 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Government of India Act, 1935
The High Commissioner For India And The ... vs I.M. Lall on 18 March, 1948
In view of the Privy Council decision in Sigh Commr. for India and Pakistan v. Lall, 50 Bom. L. R 649 he is not entitled either to damages or to arrears of pay. Their Lordships observed in that case that it was not necessary to cite authority to establish that no action in tort could lie against the Grown and therefore any right of action for damages must either be baaed on contract or conferred by statute. They went on to say that the respondent had sought to establish a statutory right to recover arrears of pay by action in the civil Court and had made reference accordingly to Sections 179(8), 247(4), 249 and 250, Government of India Act, 1935. But, said their Lordships, it was enough to state that they were unable to derive from these sections any statutory right to recover arrears of pay by action. As far as damages were concerned, their Lordships said that the order of remit by the Federal Court was not maintained by the respondent before that Board. It would clearly, therefore, follow from this decision of the Privy Council that the plain-tiff's claim to damages and arrears of salary must fail. The rules made under the Bombay District Police Act, 1890, do not provide for any right to claim damages or arrears of pay. Admittedly there was no contract in this ease on the basis of which the plaintiff could claim damages, and there is no statutory provision also in regard to the claim made in this respect. The same would apply also as far as his claim to arrears of pay is concerned. This position was realised obviously by Mr. Patel, and it was therefore that he did not seriously press before us his client's claim to damages and arrears of pay.
Section 210 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
The Broach Borough Municipality vs Bhadriklal Ambalal on 12 September, 1950
We have considered the decisions in Broach Municipality v. Bhadriklal and Lalbhai Chimanlal v. Municipal Borough of Ahmedabad: but are unable to find any observations therein from which it could be said that their Lordships had held in these cases that a breach of a rule would not give rise to a cause of action. It is true that in both these cases the proper procedure according to the rules was not followed. But it is to be remembered that in both these cases the person dismissed was a municipal employee, whereas in the case before us the plaintiff held an office under the Crown. This would show that the present case would stand on a different footing from the cases which were dealt with in the above said appeals.
Section 213 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
R.T. Rangachari vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 8 December, 1936
This decision would again be no authority for saying that a breach of a rule would not give rise to a cause of action, since as we have just said, the matter was disposed of on the basis of the relationship of master and servant between the Municipality and the person dismissed,
[16] It is to be noted that in R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State (89 Bom. L. R. 683) there was a statutory provision in Section 96B, Government of India Act, 1915, which, as amended by the Act of 1919, said that a person in the Civil Service of the Crown in India held office during His Majesty's pleasure and could not be dismissed by an authority subordinate to the one which appointed him. The actual words in the section are, "but no person in that service may he dismissed by any authority subordinate to that by which he
was appointed. . . ." It was held in this casa that a breach of the abovementioned statutory provision gave rise to a cause of action. In that case, no question arose for considering whether a breach of a rule would give rise to a cause of action. Therefore, in this decision also we see no support for an argument that no cause of action could arise from a breach of a rule.
R. Venkata Rao vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 8 December, 1936
The next case to which our attention was drawn was Section Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State, 39 Bom. L.R. 693. It was held in that case that the rules which were alleged to have been broken were directory and no contractual obligations were created by them.