The appellants then filed an appeal against the order of the learned judge before a Division Bench of the High Court and obtained an order for stay of delivery pending the decision of the appeal. Viswanatha Sastry contended that the learned Judges, having rightly conceded the power of the Election Tribunal to amend the pleadings under 0. 89 on the ground that the said rule was inapplicable to the sale held by the receiver.
We have earlier quoted that finding in the very words in which the learned Judges of the High Court expressed it. 15,000, was drawn by Govindprasad and the further amounts for building the house were supplied, were not filed. 149, because the number of convicted persons was only four? The question is the true scope and effect of the definition clause in s. There is no doubt some force in this contention, but this argument was presumably advanced before the learned Judges and was negatived on the following ground stated at p.
After considering the English decisions on the statutory provisions which are pari materia with our enactments, the Court held that the Election Tribunal had no power to permit a new ground to be 303 raised beyond the time of limitation prescribed by s. On April 29, 1959, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and refused to grant certificate to the appellants to file an appeal in this Court. We may say at once that the High Court does not find that the unlawful assembly con- sisted of the four convicted persons and some of the 181 acquitted persons.
On the other hand, if the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court for issuance of certain writ under [pic]Article 226, although Article 227 is also mentioned, and principally the judgment appealed against falls under Article 226, the appeal would be maintainable. We think that the answer must be in the negative. Vikram Cement[41] and stated thus:- 36. 81 for presentation of an election petition, that one of those conditions was that it should be presented within the time allowed therefor, and that accordingly, no amendment should be allowed which would have the effect of defeating that provision.
To go back to the arguments urged on behalf of the appellants; it is necessary, first, to understand clearly what the finding of the final Supreme Court India lawyers (just click the up coming article) of fact is. The question that arises now is this: in view of these findings of the High Supreme Court Law firms, can it be said that the High Court wrongly applied s. Sanyal, for the appellants, has raised for our decision is that the courts below were in error Law firms in Supreme Cour of Indiat refusing to give relief to the appellants under 0.
17, Civil Procedure Code, went wrong in limiting that power Law firms in Supreme Cour of Indiat the way they did, and that the reason advanced by them in limiting that power equally applies to the pleadings in a suit, for, it is said, under the Indian Limitation Act, every suit filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. The question has arisen in the following circumstances. The appellants 26 202 then applied for and obtained special leave from this Court on May 20, 1959.
That clearly is not the finding of the High Supreme Court India Law firms, because it says that ” the identity of all the persons has not been established except that of accused nos. -This appeal by special leave raises a question of some nicety and of considerable importance in the matter of industrial relations in this country. If the judgment under appeal falls squarely within four corners of Article 227, it goes without saying that intra-court appeal from such judgment would not be maintainable.
What is important to be ascertained is the true nature of order passed by the Single Judge and not what provision he mentions while exercising such powers Dinkar Kashinath Watve[40], Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. That is how this appeal has come before us; and the main point which Mr. It may, therefore, be held that the accounts, which could have thrown some light on the sources from which Rs. 17, Civil Procedure Code, to the proceedings before the Tribunal, the exercise of the power under that rule must, nevertheless, be subject to the conditions prescribed by s.
The leading decision on the subject is that of the Judicial Committee in Bolo v. Therein, Sir Benod Mitter, observed: This Article was subject to judicial scrutiny both by the Judicial Committee as well as by the High Supreme Court advocates of various States. That finding stated-(1) there was no doubt that more than five persons constituted the unlawful assembly, though the identity of all the persons except those four who were convicted was not established ; (2) that the total number of persons constituting the unlawful assembly was ten to thirteen; (3) that all the ten to thirteen persons had the common object and common intention of killing Kurji, Harji and Mitha; and lastly (4) that the killing was done in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common intention of all, and the appellants took a major part in the assault on two of the brothers, Kurji and Harji.
2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).