Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.19 seconds)Section 6 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
The Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 543 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
Section 235 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Munnu Lal, Minor, Through Ram Lal vs Raja Ram And Ors. on 9 March, 1922
Ram Lal v. Raja Ram, 1960-62 Pun L. R. 291, a decision by Chief Justice Khosla and Dulat J., has been referred to in support of the contention. This decision, however, is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of the present case and is of no assistance to the learned counsel, suit for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the place where the pre-empted property was situate fell outside the limits of Panipat town and in that locality no custom of Pre-emption prevailed. On appeal, the lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that the custom of pre-emption prevailed in the locality in which the property in dispute was situate.
Section 24 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
British Medical Stores And Ors. vs L. Bhagirath Mal And Ors. on 26 August, 1954
British Medical Stores v. Bhagirath Mal, (1954) 56 Pun L. R. 449 : ((S) AIR 1955 Punj 5), is the next authority on which reliance is placed. From this decision also support is sought for the proposition that an appeal to the Court of appeal is by way of re-hearing and the Court may make such order as the Judge of first instance could have made if the case had been heard by him at the date on which the appeal was being determined. I may in passing mention that on the merits of the dispute in the reported case the Supreme Court has reversed this decision but in so far as the proposition, with respect to the jurisdiction and power of the Court of appeal to take notice of changes in law, made applicable to the controversy before it, is concerned the proposition enunciated therein is unexceptionable. This rule as I have already observed is not of much assistance to the appellant.