Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)
R.K.A. Ponnuraman vs Rajappa Malavarayar on 13 April, 1959 cites

O. A. O. K. Lakshmanan Chettiar vs J.S. Kannappar And Ors. on 30 September, 1926

With due respect, not only am I bound to follow the Full Bench decision in Lakshmanan Chetty v. Kannappar (1926) 51 M.L.J. 738 : I.L.R. 50 Mad. 121(F.B.), but I am myself in complete agreement with the view expressed therein. In that view I do not think this Civil Revision Petition could be considered to be competent. The District Munsif having been named and designated as a Judicial authority to enquire into the petitions under Section 19(1) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act is not a civil Court, which could be said to be subordinate to the jurisdiction of the High Court so as to be brought within the purview of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It may be that as a Tribunal any Election Commissioner or any other judicial authority acting as the persona designata may be subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. But that right or remedy could be invoked only when there is want of jurisdiction in the order or the decision passed by the Tribunal. In this case it is not contended that the District Munsif acting as persona designata has acted without jurisdiction or even acted in excess of the jurisdiction. On the other hand, the point raised is only that in view of the fact that this District Munsif acting as the persona designata in regard to the enquiry in question is not subordinate to the Civil Court, the High Court could not exercise any jurisdiction over it, unless it was positively established that there was lack of jurisdiction in the order passed.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

M. Abdul Wahid Sahib vs Dewanjee Abdul Khader Sahib on 25 February, 1947

A further decision reported in Abdul Wahib Sahib v. Abdul Khader Sahib (1947) 1 M.L.J. 207, was also cited by Mr. Jagadisa Ayyar wherein Yahya Ali, J., held that any Officer designated by name,, though he might hold the position of a judicial authority was still acting only as a persona designata and not as a Court, following the decision of the Full Bench in. Lakshmanan Chetty v. Kannappar (1926) 51 M.L.J. 738 : I.L.R. 50 Mad. 121.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

R.M.A.R.A. Adaikappa Chettiar vs R. Chandrasekhara Thevar on 29 July, 1947

In addition to this Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar also invited my attention to the decision of the Privy Council in Adaikappa Chettiar v. Chandrasekhara Thevar (1948) 1 M.L.J. 41 : L.R. 74 I.A. 264 : I.L.R. (1948) Mad. 505 (P.C.), which he stated had application to the facts of the present case. The decision in this authority cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that where a legal right is in dispute and the ordinary Courts of the country are seized of such dispute, the Courts are governed by the ordinary rules of procedure applicable thereto and an appeal lies, if authorized by such Rules, notwithstanding that the legal right claimed arises under a special statute which does, not in terms confer a right of appeal.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 126 - Full Document

Phul Kumari vs State And Anr. on 31 January, 1957

18. As against this Mr. Jagadisa Ayyar has invited my attention to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kumari v. State and Anr. , where the Court refused permission to convert a Civil Revision Petition into an application for a writ of certiorari or an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. It has been conceded by the learned Counsel for the respondent on this point that the proper remedy to be sought by the petitioner would be only under Article 226 of the Constitution and not an application for converting this Civil Revision Petition into an application under Article 227. I agree with this contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent. It is open to the petitioner to file an application for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution especially in view of fact that the bar of limitation does not affect the petitioner seeking such a relief in this High Court. The District Munsif acting even as a persona designata is a Tribunal and the orders of that Tribunal could be questioned by means of a writ application. I do not think that in such circumstances there is need for me to grant permission to the petitioner to convert this Civil Revision Petition into an application under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Allahabad High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ahamad Thambi Maracayar vs Basava Maracayar on 10 October, 1922

536, and Ahamad Thambi Maracayar v. Basava Maracayar (1922) 44 M.L.J. 69 : I.L.R. 46 Mad. 123, wherein it has been held that a Judge hearing an election petition before him under the Rules issued by the Local Government, whether under the Local Boards Act or under the District Munisipalities Act, was acting not merely as a persona designata but also as a Court in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction extended for that purpose.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next