Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)
Raghunath Narayan Bokil vs Vithal Sawala Limbhore Through His Lrs. ... on 11 September, 2007 cites

Vasant Hariba Londhe vs Jagannath Eamghandra Kulkarni on 25 March, 1968

12. In my view, both, the SDO as well as MRT, in its first order, had correctly assessed the legal position and held that the tenant could not have filed second application under Section 37. In my view, MRT clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that both the authorities have committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of record. It has to be held that if two views are possible and one view is taken by the concerned authority, in review, reviewing authority cannot substitute its own view to the other view which is taken by it. In my view, the MRT, in review, has not taken into consideration the ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court wherein this distinction has been drawn and further the Apex Court has, in catena of cases, considered what is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The judgment of the MRT in review does not satisfy this test and, therefore, in my view, MRT has exercised a jurisdiction which is not vested in it by law and, therefore, the said judgment in review application is liable to be quashed and set aside. The ratio of the judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next