Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (2.98 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Genu Laxman Shinde & Ohters vs Shri Chandrakant Dagadu Kotulkar on 14 October, 1998

Ayub Khan S/O Gani Khan Pathan And Ors. vs Mehtabkhan S/O Hayat Khan Pathan ... on 8 April, 2004

Having considered the Division Bench judgment in Raghunath's case and Genu Laxman Shinde's case, I am of the view that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its order under section 322 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Having arrived at this conclusion, in my judgment, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was justified in reviewing its order. The Tribunal on noticing that the revision was dismissed when the revision petitioner had died and his heirs were not brought on record. The record produced along with this petition shows that the Revision Application was, in fact, filed through the power of attorney of Mehtab Khan s/o Hayat Khan. The fact of death of Mehtab Khan s/o Hayat Khan was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, the advocate who appeared for revision petitioner through the power of attorney filed an application to hear the revision on merit. This aspect was considered by the Tribunal and. accordingly, the review was allowed. Hence, there was sufficient ground to review the judgment and order. I therefore find no jurisdictional error has been committed by the Tribunal in allowing Revision Application.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A B Naik - Full Document

Shri Raghunath Narayan Bokil vs Shri Vithal Sawala Limbhori (Through ... on 20 October, 2006

In the reference order, another judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Genu Laxman Shinde v. Chandrakant Dagadu Kotulkar 1999(1) Mh. L.J., 235 has been noticed wherein it was held that the Tribunal possesses power to review its order passed under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Having noticed the inconsistency in the aforesaid two judgments, the Single Judge thought fit to have the said controversy resolved by the larger Bench.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Raghunath Narayan Bokil vs Vithal Sawala Limbhore Through His Lrs. ... on 11 September, 2007

7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that after having filed Consent Terms in earlier application, it was not open for respondent No. 1 to re-agitate this issue by filing second application. He then submitted that concurrent finding was recorded by SDO and by MRT that in view of the Consent Terms, the respondent No. 1 had given up his claim over the remaining land and, having done so, was estopped from again filing a similar application. He submitted that the MRT, in review, could not have re-appreciated the evidence on record and that it had erred in coming to the conclusion that MRT and SDO in its earlier order had committed error of law which was apparent on the face of the record. He invited my attention to provisions of Section 37 and submitted that the right which accrued in favour of tenant under Section 37 was extinguished after the tenant had given up his claim in writing which, according to the petitioner, he had done so by filing Consent Terms and, therefore, his right having extinguished under Section 37 of the BT and AL Act, it was not open for him to re-agitate the said issue. The learned Counsel relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 188 of 1980 in the case of Mandakini D. Marathe v. Bharat Pandurang Raut decided on 6-2-1986 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Genu Laxman Shinde v. Chandrakant Dagadu Kotulkar .
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V M Kanade - Full Document

Balaso Mhadgonda Patil (Since Deceased ... vs Hirabai Malgonda Patil And Ors on 5 June, 2023

22. Mr. Arjunwadkar also placed reliance on the decisions of this .Vishal Parekar ...16 ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 08:57:48 ::: wp-9457-2018.doc Court in the cases of Anoopchand Nathmal Baid vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur and Others2 and Genu Laxman Shinde vs. Chandrakant Dagadu Kotulkar 3, to bolster up the case that in the case at hand, there was no error apparent on the face of the record.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - N J Jamadar - Full Document
1