Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.19 seconds)
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. on 5 July, 1967 cites

Tilak Ram And Ors. vs Nathu And Ors. on 5 September, 1966

In Tilak Ram v. Nathu, AIR 1967 SC 935 it was pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the section requires (i) an admission or acknowledgement (ii) that such acknowledgement must be in respect of a liability in respect of a property or right (in) that it must be made before the expiry of the period of limitation and (iv) that it should be in writing and signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed. Explanation I appended to the section provides that an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay or is coupled with a claim of set off.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 61 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Governor-General In Council vs Gouri Shankar Mills Ltd. on 5 May, 1949

Section 140, however, came up for consideration before this Court in Governor General in Council v. Gouri Shankar Mills Ltd., AIR 1949 Pat 347 and the view that has prevailed in this Court is that the requirements of Section 77 read with Section 140 of the Railways Act are fulfilled by serving a notice within the prescribed period on the Chief Commercial Manager or any other Subordinate Officer of the railway provided it is established as a fact that such subordinate officer has been held out as a competent person to deal with the claims of such kind. In paragraph 10 of its judgment, the lower appellate Court has referred to certain materials from which it appears that the claim put forward by the plaintiff in the letter Ext. 3 was entertained by the Chief Commercial Superintendent who acknowledged the receipt of the plaintiffs letter (Ext. 3) and wrote to the plaintiff that the matter was under investigation (vide Ext. 3/i dated the 9th March 1956). The lower appellate Court further pointed out that on the side of the defendant there was no denial of authority of the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent to deal with the plaintiff's claim, and no attempt was made on behalf of the defendant to show that the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent was not an officer who was authorised to entertain such claim. In these circumstances, the lower appellate Court was amply justified in presuming, as it did that the notice under Section 77 was validly served upon a competent officer of the railway administration The second point raised by Mr Bose, accordingly, fails.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1   2 Next