Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Kiron Chandra Bose vs Kalidas Chatterji on 16 February, 1943

Chatur Mohan And Ors. vs Ram Behari Dixit on 29 April, 1963

"One has got to look to the entire provision for the purpose of deteming whether the matter is to be Beard by the Judicial Officer as a Court or in his own personal capa city"; Kiron Chandra Bose v. Kalidas Chatterji, AIR 1943 Cal 247. "Whether an act is to be perform-ed by the one or the other is generally to be determined by the character of the act, rather than by such designation. Whenever the power or duty imposed is found from a consideration of the object ana purposes of the act to be one which is more properly the function of the court, it will be so construed; and whenever it is manifest that the legislature meant the judge, and not the court, that meaning will be applied to the words in order to carry out the legislative intent"; see 14 Am. Jur., "Courts", para 4.
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Sm. Suhashini Das W/O Surendra Nath Das vs Mahendra Kumar Bose on 13 May, 1947

In a case dealing with the Bengal House Rent Control Order, namely Kiran Chandra Bose v. Kalidas Chatterjee , it was held by Mukherji and Blank JJ., that an order passed by the District Judge in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by para. 12, Bengal House Bent Control Order could not be revised by the High Court, inasmuch as the District Judge, in exercising those powers, did not act as a Court but only as a persona deisgnata and a superior executive authority. Broadly stated, that decision was grounded on two reasons. The first was that the relevant para of the Bengal House Rent Control Order, namely para 12, named only the "District Judge" and the language used in the order gave no indication that the District Judge was contemplated as the presiding Office of the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction, in the district. The second reason given was that the House Rent Control Order itself was not a legislative provision of the ordinary kind, but an executive order by which the existing jurisdiction of the civil Courts could not be enlarged. It was accordingly held that the District Judge, in exercising the powers conferred by para. 12 of the Bengal House Rent Cortrol Order, could not be held to be a Court at all, far less a Court subordinate to this High Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 116 - Full Document

Onkar Dutta Shastri vs The Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board on 13 November, 1959

As the provisions of the order show, the machinery that is set up for controlling house rent is a purely executive machinery acting under the control of the Governor or the executive authority. The procedure that is laid down in the order is not a judicial procedure at all. Certain executive Officers are given the authority to act as Rent Controllers and they are to fix the rent in the way laid down in para. 7 of the Order. Paragraph 12 which has been set out above shows that the District Judge or the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court before whom a petition of appeal can be presented acts merely in the capacity of a superior executive officer.
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Firm Of S. Mohd. Ali And Sons And Ors. vs V. Madhavarao And Ors. on 23 November, 1962

The learned Judge based the conclusion on Kiron Chandra v. Kalidas Chatterjee, AIR 1943 Cal 247 and Municipal Corporation, Rangoon v. M. A. Shakur, AIR 1926 Rang 25 (FB). In AIR 1943 Cal 247 a Bench of that Court found that the District Judge in exercising the powers under Para 12 of the Calcutta Houses Rent Control Order does not act as a Court and consequently his orders are not revisable by the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 29 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Bathula Krishna Brahmam And Ors. vs Daram Chenchi Reddy And Ors. on 19 September, 1958

11. Another case cited by the respondent in support of his contention is Kiron Chandra Bose v. Kalidas Chatterji, AIR 1943 Cal 247. The proposition enunciated there was that the Chief Judge or the District Judge discharging functions under Paragraph 12 of the Bengal House Rent Control Order did not act as a Court with the result that his orders were not revisable under Section 115, C. P. C. The ratio decidendi of this ruling was that the order under which he was appointed was one made by the Governor by virtue of the powers derived by him under Section 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules and as such was an executive act, pure and simple.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 36 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

The Public Prosecutor vs Legisetty Ramayya And Anr. on 12 August, 1974

14. Broadly speaking court is a place where justice is administered. We find the term "court" defined in the, Evidence Act as including all Judges and Magistrates and. all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence. This definition is by no means exhaustive and it is an inclusive definition framed for the purpose of the Evidence Act. It is quite an Ordinary practice in drafting Indian statutes or even otherwise for a reference to be made to the officer presiding over the Court even if it is the Court which is meant. The words "court" and "Judge" are sometimes used as interchangeable terms. See Mangu Venkataiah in Re. (1962) 1 Andh WR 29, Kiron Chandra Bose v. Kalidas Chatterji AIR 1043 Cal 247 and Chatur Mohan v. Ram Behari .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 55 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

K. Krishna Nair vs Valliammal on 26 October, 1948

and Kiron Chandra v. Kalidas Chatterjee A.I.R. 1943 Cal. 247, for the proposition that if a statute or rule names a "Court" as an "authority" the usual appeals and revisions lying to the High Court from that Court will lie. I agree, as in this case, the second Judge of the Small Causes Court did not act as a persona designata but as a Judge of the Small Causes Court, and as a part of the Small Causes Court. So, this petition will lie. The learned Counsel for the petitioner raised three main contentions. The first was that the rule making the Small Causes Court itself the "authority" to hear appeals against the orders of the House Rent Controller, instead of the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, as formerly was ultra vires, since a Court can never be an "authority." I cannot agree. A Court can certainly be an "authority" though every "authority" need not be a Court. It is commonly stated that the High Court is the highest authority in the Province in Judicial matters. There is no inherent absurdity or incorrectness about this expression. I have not been referred to any rulings by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of this startling proposition. Indeed, the very rulings relied on by him for showing that a revision petition would lie to this Court are to cases where a Court is named as the "authority."
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next