Reader Comments

NRI Legal Services Things To Know Before You Buy

by Numbers Fetherstonhaugh (2018-10-25)

But after it comes in conflict, Section 4 CPC would not save, on the contrary its language implied would make such special or local law inapplicable. Kirpal Singh and another[1996] INSC 528; , (1995) 5 SCC 119, which was referred to in the course of arguments by both Shri Giri and Shri Viswanathan. This Section was couched in language similar to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it existed before the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, which amended Section 100 to make it more restrictive so that a second appeal could only be filed if there was a substantial question of law involved in the matter.

Thus so long there was no specific provision to the contrary in this Advocates Code, Section 4 CPC saved special or local law. aid from the State might not be continued after the merger. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to 'SC' category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to 'SC' category. This Court further held that, in any event, Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act being a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to a later law made by Parliament, namely, Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, and that therefore, by virtue of the operation of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, the said provision is in any case overridden.

We may examine now the submission for the respondent based on the language of Section 100(1) CPC even after the said amendment. The question this Court posed before itself was whether Section 41 stood repealed by virtue of Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, which reads as under:- 97. In arriving at the aforesaid two conclusions, this Court held:- Now we proceed to examine Section 97(1) of the Amendment Act and the amendment of Section 100 CPC by the said 1976 Act.

The Baroda Electric Supply Concern was owned and managed by the State of Baroda. The bonus was claimed on the basis that the electric Concern was a commerical concern, that it was making 'huge profits and that the workmen were entitled to bonus as a share in the profits. In accordance with our judgment, therefore, it is clear that this authority is no longer good law inasmuch as Section 98(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 would expressly save the said Letters Patent, and would thus make clause Advocates 26 applicable in place of Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2013, inter alia, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Immediately before the merger of the State in the Province of Bombay, the State made a gift of the Concern to the Baroda Municipality to provide it with a new source of revenue as. The Lahore Letters Patent contains a provision similar to clause 36 of the Letters Patent that governed Bombay and Calcutta by a pari materia provision contained in clause 26 of the Lahore Letters Patent.

This Court concluded that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act was repealed because it would amount to an amendment made or provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature. This judgment only decided that a difference between two Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court would have to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure because Section 98(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply, as the Punjab High Court is not governed by the Letters Patent.

Repeal and savings (1) Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or a High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except insofar as such amendment or provision is consistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed. The reliance is on the following words: This introduction definitely is in conflict with Section 41 of the Punjab Act which was in pari materia with unamended Section 100 CPC.

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. It is not that petitioners did not belong to 'SC' category prior to 30th June, 1998 or that acquired the status of being 'SC' only on the date of issuance of the certificate.

In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30th June, 1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved. The trial Court accepted to record Advocates the testimony of the prosecutrix, through video conference. What appears to have been missed by this decision is the fact that the Punjab and Haryana High Court continues to be governed by the Advocates Letters Patent governing the High Court set up at Lahore. At this juncture it is necessary to refer to the decision in Tej Kaur and another v.

Four witnesses were examined by the trial Court before examining the prosecutrix-PW5. Later in 1951, the workmen employed in the electricity department demanded bonus and the dispute was referred for adjudication. The municipality resisted the demand, inter alia, on the grounds that the earnings of one department could not be treated as profits of the municipality, and Advocates that as a whole the muncipal budget for the relevant period was a deficit budget.

The complainant in the above case is a citizen of Ireland, resident in Dublin. Through this amendment, right to second appeal stands further restricted only to lie where, the case involves a substantial question of law. The judgment in Kulwant Kaurs case raised a question which arose on an application of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.