Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (3.22 seconds)
Documents citing The Municipality Of Sholapur vs Tuljaram Krishnasa Chavan on 9 February, 1931

Muljee Sicka And Co. vs The Municipal Commissioner Of Bombay on 17 March, 1939

This clause cannot have been intended to curtail any of the powers possessed by the High Courts before the Act of 1935 was passed. In fact Section 223 preserves those powers. All that Sub-section (2) of Section 224 means is that the High Courts cannot so interpret Sub-section (1) of that section as to usurp the powers "which they did not possess before. This is clear from the expression "not otherwise subject to appeal or revision". It is true that this clause may throw some doubt as to whether the remarks made in Sholapur Municipality Mire v. Tuljaram Krishnasa that though an order of a subordinate Court may not be subject to revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, it can be revised in the exercise of the powers of superintendence conferred by Section 107 of the Government of India Act of 1915, can now hold good. All this discussion is more or less academical, since Section 224 of the Government of India Act of 1935 deals with the administrative functions of the High Courts, as the marginal note shows. It does not affect the powers conferred upon the High Courts by the Letters Patent and the Charter Act, powers co-extensive with those of the King's Bench in England, and, as I have already pointed out, the Court of the King's Bench has1 power to issue a writ of certiorari in respect not only of the orders of subordinate Gouts, but also of the proceedings of any tribunal or officer who, though not a Court, is yet acting judicially in those proceedings. It is not disputed that, although the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, hearing an appeal under Section 217 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, be not a Court, his decision is a judicial act, and if he acts without jurisdiction or in excess of his legal authority, his act can be controlled by this Court by a writ of prohibition or certiorari, as the case may be. It is no doubt true that Sub-section (1) of Section 219 of the Act provides that the decision of the Chief Judge upon any appeal under Section 217 against any such value or tax shall be final. But that only means that there are no further appeals, but it does not affect the power of this Court to issue a writ of certiorari.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Nara Narayan Mandal vs Aghore Chandra Ganguli And Anr. on 18 April, 1935

In the case of Sholapur Municipality v. Tuljaram Krishnasa 55 B. 544 at p. 552 : 134 Ind. Cas. 1240 : 33 Bom. L.R. 1067 : A.I.R. 1931 Bom. 582 : Ind. Rul. (1932) Bom. 24, it was pointed out that as Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides in terms that the. District Court is subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of the Code, the District Court for the purposes of s, 107 of the Government of India Act, must be regarded as generally subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Lic vs Nandini J. Shah . on 20 February, 2018

The Division Bench has also adverted to the decisions in Gangadhar Bapurao Gadre Vs. Hubli Municipality38 dealing with Section 22 of the Bombay District Municipality Act; Municipality of Sholapur Vs. Tuljaram Krishnasa Chavan39 dealing with provisions of Bombay City Municipalities Act; Keshav Ramchandra (supra), dealing with Section 15 of the provisions of Bombay Municipal Act and Jagmohan Surajmal Marwadi (supra), and held that the District Judge exercised his power as a persona designata.
Supreme Court of India Cites 116 - Cited by 35 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Kavasji Pestonji Dalal vs Rustomji Sorabji Jamadar on 6 April, 1948

This clause cannot have been intended to curtail any of the powers possessed by the High Courts before the Act of 1935 was passed. In fact Section 223 preserves those powers. All that Sub-section (2) of Section 224 means is that the High Courts cannot so interpret Sub-section (1) of that section as to usurp the powers which they did not possess before. This is clear from the expression 'not otherwise subject to appeal or revision.' It is true that this clause may throw some doubt as to whether the remarks made in Sholapur Municipality v. Tuljaram Krishnasa, that though an order of a subordinate Court may not be subject to revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, it can be revised in the exercise of the powers of superintendence conferred by Section 107 of the Government of India Act of 1915, can now hold good. All this discussion is more or less academical, since Section 224 of the Government of India Act of 1935 deals with the administrative functions of the High Courts, as the marginal note shows.
Bombay High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra ... vs Shaikh Kasam Shaikh Hussain And Ors. on 4 April, 1986

24. It is clear from the provisions of section 41-E(4) of the Act that the application for attachment of property of the person concerned or he detention in civil prison for desobedience or breach of temporary injunction lies before the Court. The word "Court" is defined in section 2(4) of the Act to mean, in the Greater Bombay, the City Civil Court and elsewhere the District Court. The expression "District Court" is not defined in the Act and the same will have to be therefore understood in the sense in which it is defined in section 7 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869. The District Court means the principal Court of original Civil jurisdiction in the district within the meaning of the C.P.C. It is thus the ordinary Civil Court of the land before which the proceedings under section 41E(4) of the Act lie. It is therefore clear that the authority created under the Act is not an executive officer, or a mere persona designate but is an ordinary Civil Court discharging judicial functions to which the provisions of the C.P.C. are made applicable by section 76 of the Act. It is, therefore, a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 115 of the C.P.C. and would therefore, be subject to its revisional jurisdiction. I am supported in this view by the catena of decisions of that Court, some of which are Sholapur Municipality v. Tuljaram, (1931)55 Bom.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

In Re: Annamalai Mudaliar vs Unknown on 3 September, 1952

6. Point 2: The restrictions sought to be imposed upon the scope of Article 227, Constitution of India as well as confining the superintendence to administrative superintendence have been the subject-matter of a catena of decisions showing that the position taken by the Government Pleader is untenable. In regard to the scope of Article 227 viz., whether it includes powers of judicial revision as contra-distinguished from administrative supervision alone, we must bear ill mind the following facts. Under Section 107, Government of India Act, 1915, 'Superintendence' was interpreted to include judicial as well as administrative superintendence, and the High Court was intervening by revision in proper cases, under Section 107, Government of India Act, 1919, in cases where Section 115, Civil P. C- or Section 430, Criminal P. C. did not apply; -- 'Sholapur Municipality v. Tuljaram', AIR 1931 Bom 582 and -- 'Emperor v. Jainnadas', AIR 1937 Bom.
Madras High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Marg vs The New India Assurance Co on 23 February, 2010

In Municipality of Sholapur vs. Tuljaram Krishnasa Chavan, A.I.R. 1931 Bombay 582 the provisions of the Bombay City Municipalities Act was under consideration. The learned Bench noted that where the Judge or the presiding officer of a Court as distinguished from the Court itself is directed to perform any function of any authority created by a statute, such a Judge may be considered as a persona designata and not a Court, but where a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court is constituted as an authority to decide the rights between the parties and is directed to perform judicial functions, it is difficult to hold that such a Court is a persona designata and not a Court subordinate to the High Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - F I Rebello - Full Document
1   2 Next