Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.02 seconds)
Documents citing Ganpati Ram Bhande And Ors. vs Baliram Raghunath Jadhav And Ors. on 8 March, 1973

Sunderlal Daga (Decd.) And Another ... vs Tax Recovery Officer And Others on 17 January, 1997

22. Shri Bobde, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 8, made an attempt to support the order of the Tax Recovery Officer contending that a finding by the Tax Recovery Officer that section 281 of the Act is not attracted as there is no valid transfer by the defaulter would tantamount to a finding that the claimant's possession, if any, is not on their own right. This argument cannot hold good for the simple reason that the scope of the enquiry under rule 11 of the Second Schedule is limited and complicated questions of title cannot be gone into under the said rule. Apart from the same it is the settled position that when an authority is invested with quasi-judicial function under the statute, the said power has to be exercised in the manner provided for in the statute, and the authority has no jurisdiction to depart from the procedure laid down by the said statute.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (No. 2) And ... vs Tax Recovery Officer on 15 December, 1982

10. It is settled law that complicated questions of title are not to be gone into under the summary procedure of investigation under Order 21, rule 58. The criterion on which the court has to carry out the investigation is possession. It is possible that in the course of the investigation as to who is in possession of the property attached, a question of some legal right, interest or title may arise. If such legal right, interest or title affects the determination of the question as to who is the person really in possession, such legal right, interest or title has to be taken into account (See Ganpati Ram Bhande v. Baliram Raghunath Jadhav, , Dudharam Janardan Chimurkar v. Balaji Raghobaji Band, , Nalinkant Bhanushanker Dave v. Hiralal Amratlal Parekh, , Ambalal Sankaleshwar Oza v. Punjabhai Trikamlal Pandya, AIR 1943 Bom 129 at 130, se ILR 9 Cal 543 at 546, Ramaswami Chettiar (N.N.L.) v. Mallappa Reddiar, AIR 1920 Mad 748 [FB] at 753.) The amendment of Order 21, rule 58, was effected to invest the court with the right to decide all questions including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property attached, arising between the parties and relating to the adjudication of the claim or objection. The objects and reasons for the amendment aver that, as it existed, the investigation had a limited scope and the matter had to be further adjudicated by way of regular suit. In order to prevent protraction of litigation, it was thought desirable to have all questions, including questions of title, settled finally in the execution proceedings.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - S P Bharucha - Full Document
1