Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing The Municipal Corporation Of Bombay vs L.R. Mallandaine on 12 October, 1923

Alimahomed Salemahomed vs Municipal Commissioner Of Bombay on 15 August, 1924

1. This is an application under the Specific Relief Act, «. 45, for an order on the Municipal Commissioner to grant the applicant a license for stables for hack victorias erected by him at Love Lane, Mazagaon, under Section 394 (1) (c) of the City of Bombay Municipal Act III of 1888. The Municipal Commissioner has declined to issue a license in this case on the ground that he was prevented from doing so by the order of the Appeal Court: Bombay Municipality v. Mallandaine (1928) 25 Bom. L.R. 1321. The Municipal Commissioner has put in an affidavit in reply to the application in which he concedes that but for the judgment of the Appeal Court he is quite willing to exercise his discretion in favour of the applicant and to issue a license to him as applied for by him. In the opinion of the Commissioner, who has a discretion in the matter, the applicant is entitled to the license and he says that if he had not been advised by his legal advisers that the Appeal Court judgment prevented him from exercising his discretion in the matter he would have issued the license to the applicant.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 24 July, 1961

In Municipal Corporation of Bombay v. Secretary of State [I.L.R.(1905) 29 Bom. 580], the true effect of s. 1 of St. 22 and 23 Vic. c. 41 fell to be determined. The Governor-General of India in Council and the Governors in Council and officers for the time being entrusted with the Government were, subject to restrictions prescribed by the Secretary of State in Council, empowered to sell and dispose of real and personal estate vested in Her Majesty and to raise money on such estate and also to enter into contracts within the respective limits for the purposes of the Act. It was provided that the Secretary of State in Council may be named as a party to such deed, contract, or instrument and the same must be expressed to be made on behalf of the Secretary of State in Council by or by the order of the Governor-General in Council or Governor in Council, but may be executed in other respects in like manner as other instruments executed by or on behalf of him or them respectively in his or their official capacity, and may be enforced by or against the Secretary of State in Council for the time being. In a suit between the Government of Bombay and the Municipal Corporation of Bombay, the latter claimed that it was entitled to remain in occupation on payment of a nominal rent, of an extensive piece of land because of a resolution passed by the Government of Bombay sanctioning such user. Jenkins C.J. in delivering the judgment of the Court observed :
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1