REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Appellant

V/S

SANSAR CHAND Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

JODHAN PERSHAD SINGH V. NANHKU PERSHAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
LEKH RAM V. RAMJI DAS [REFERRED TO]
GURSARAN DAS V. DISTRICT BOARD,JULLUNDUR [REFERRED TO]
DIYAL DAS V. SUNDAR DAS [REFERRED TO]
BASAVAYYA V. M. VENKATAPPAYYA [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH V. RAM GOPAL [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH V. JAGJIT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PUSHKAR NARAIN V. CHAND BEHARILAL GHISULAL [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL RAO V. DOLEGOBINDA SAHU [REFERRED TO]
GANESH PRASAD V. NARENDRA NATH [REFERRED TO]
PAULO VARGHESE V. ITTINE ABRAHAM [REFERRED TO]
DHIYAN SINGH VS. JUGAL KISHORE [REFERRED TO]
BHOJRAJ KRISHNARAO VS. DARSU [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR RAM VS. KAPILDEO PATHAK [REFERRED TO]
ACHUT RAMCHANDRA PAI VS. NAGAPPA BAB BALGYA [REFERRED TO]
CHAKHAN LAL VS. KANHAIYA LAL [REFERRED TO]
MARITIME NATIONAL FISH, LTD VS. OCEAN TRAWLERS LTD [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT BOARD VS. GSANTHAPPA NAIK [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNASAMI PANDIKONDAR VS. RAMASAMI CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
DEPURU VEERARAGHAVA REDDI VS. DEPURU KAMALAMMA [REFERRED TO]
MATHRA DAS VS. SHAMBOO NATH AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
GANESH DAS VS. KANTHU AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM MOHAMMAD VS. BARKAT ALI AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT RAM VS. MISAR KHARAITI RAM AND ANR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, by a plaintiff, arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 32,726/-/-, representing the balance due to him (the plaintiff) from defendants 1 and 2 (Sansar Chand and Hari Chand) on account of the sale of the right to levy octroi at Chamba for 2005 B. The remaining defendants stood sureties for defendants 1 and 2 and were accordingly impleaded in the suit. After a protracted trial, the suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Chamba on 31-8-1957. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) WHEN this appeal came up for hearing at Chamba on the 9th ultimo, three preliminary objections were raised by the learned counsel for the respondents to its competency. (A) The memorandum of appeal was not properly signed or presented, since Shri L.N. Sethi was not the Government Advocate of Chamba at the relevant period. (B) Talbana had not yet been paid. (C) The appeal was time-barred because when it was presented to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Chamba (on behalf of this Court) on 29-11-1957, there was a deficiency of Rs. 351/8/- in court-fees--which deficiency was made good as late as 9-7-1958, i.e. long after the expiry of the limitation period.

(3.) (A) Mr. V.V. Mahajan for the respondents urged that the memorandum of this appeal was neither properly signed, nor presented. He pleaded that Himachal Pradesh became an Union Territory with effect from 1-11-1956, following the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. He contended that under Order 27, Rule 1, Civil P. C., read with Article 289 of the Constitution and Section 122 of the States. Reorganisation Act, the present appeal could have been filed only by the President of India or by his lawfully constituted attorney, and not by the Lieutenant-Governor.

Click here to view full judgment.

UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANSAR CHAND

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address