LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label 1972. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1972. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 = Rule 43-C, it is apparent that a woman government employee having minor children below 18 years can avail CCL for maximum period of 730 days i.e. during the entire service period for taking care of upto two children. The care of children is not for rearing the smaller child but also to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness etc. Sub Rule (3) of Rule 43-C allows woman government employee to combine CCL with leave of any other kind. Under Sub Rule (4) of Rule 43-C leave of the kind due and admissible to woman government employee including commuted leave not exceeding 60 days; leave not due up to a maximum of one year, can be applied for and granted in continuation with CCL granted under Sub Rule (1). From plain reading of Sub Rules (3) and (4) of Rule 43-C it is clear that CCL even beyond 730 days can be granted by combining other leave if due.= KAKALI GHOSH … APPELLANT VERSUS CHIEF SECRETARY, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. … RESPONDENTS =2014 (April.Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41412

›
Rule 43-C of the  Central Civil  Services  (Leave)  Rules,  1972 =   Rule 43-C, it is apparent that a  woman  government employee having mi...
Sunday, March 2, 2014

Rule 30 of schedule II of Rules framed under Carriage by Air Act, 1972, and sec. 3,14, and sec. 29 of Indian Limitation Act - Limitation mentioned in special enactment prevails over the general limitation Act -Cargo damaged in transit - Cargo arrived on 17.10.1996 - all bags in cargo in a damaged and wet condition- on 2-1-1997 a notice of loss was sent - independent surveyor appointed as the loss was took place in the custody of first defendant -The consignment was insured with the second plaintiff. As per the terms and conditions of the Policy, the second plaintiff processed the claim of the first plaintiff and paid a sum of Rs.2,67,433/- for which the first plaintiff also executed a letter of Subrogation and Special Power of Attorney in favour of the second plaintiff - filed OP in Consumer forum - Forum dismissed the same - Civil suit filed - barred by limitation - their Lordships of High court held that as per Rule 30 of the Schedule II of Carriage by Air Act, 1972, the right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within two years from the date of arrival of the aircraft - since it is an special law , general law of limitation not applies - so the time consumed in wrong forum does not save the limitation and as such confirmed the dismissal orders of Trial court and set aside the appellant court

›
Rule 30 of schedule II of Rules framed under  Carriage by Air Act, 1972, and sec. 3,14, and sec. 29 of Indian Limitation Act -   Limitation...
Saturday, October 6, 2012

whether under Section 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Administration of Land Act, 1972 (for short `the 1972 Act’) a final decree stood abated. The Full Bench referred to the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the 1972 Act, scanned the language employed in sub-section (4) of Section 4 and came to hold that a final decree proceeding cannot be characterized as a suit or a proceeding for right, title or interest in respect of any land. It has been opined there that Section 4(4) does not include an appeal arising out of a final decree as the same would not declare any right, title or interest of the parties but deal with certain matters pertaining to what has already been declared. Pendency of an appeal against the final decree cannot take away the finality of the preliminary decree which has already declared the rights, title and interest of the parties. We may repeat for clarity that in the said case, the preliminary decree passed in the suit had become final as it was not challenged by way of an appeal. Thus, the factual matrix was quite different. Suffice it to say that in the present case the title appeal was pending against the preliminary decree and an application under Section 4(c) had been preferred. It would have been advisable on the part of the appellate court to record a finding that the entire proceeding of the civil suit stood abated. Unfortunately, the appellate court directed abatement because of non-substitution of the legal heirs of one of the respondents. We are conscious that an order is to be passed on an application filed under Section 4 (c) of the Act, but we do not intend to relegate the matter to that stage as it is obvious that in the suit, right, title and interest and status were involved which do come within the scheme of consolidation. Hence, the suit as well as the appeal abated and resultantly the very commencement of the civil proceeding came to a naught and, therefore, findings recorded in the said proceeding became extinct. The learned Judge dealing with the writ petition as well as the learned Judges deciding the intra-court appeal did not appreciate the lis in proper perspective and opined that the reliance on the findings recorded by the civil court by the revisional authority under the 1956 Act could not be faulted. The said conclusion is wholly erroneous and deserves to be overturned and we do so. 37. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the orders passed by the learned single Judge as well as of the Division Bench are set aside and the matter is remanded to the file of the learned single Judge to decide the matter on merits on the basis of the material brought before the Consolidation Authorities. We repeat at the cost of repetition that none of the findings recorded by the civil court shall be taken aid of. There shall be no order as to costs.

›
                                                                Reportable                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA      ...