Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.59 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Repealing Act, 1938
Section 12 in The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Fazalbhoy Currimbhoy Etc vs Official Trustee Of Maharashtra & Ors., ... on 12 December, 1978
"10. Mr. Adsule, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the
Government, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the
Apex Court in Sir Fazalbhoy Currimbhoy and others vs.
Official Trustee of Maharashtra and others, (1979) 3 SCC 189
and submitted that the ratio of the said judgment squarely
applies to the facts of the present case and by virtue of the said
judgment the issue stood concluded. He submitted that the
Apex Court has taken into consideration the historical
background starting from formation of the Trust and the Act
which was passed whereby the entire property of the original
owner vested in the Trustees of the said Trust and after the last
heir of Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim migrated to Pakistan, the said
property was declared as evacuee property and, therefore,
vested in the Central Government. He submitted that,
therefore, even otherwise, since the Settlement Commissioner-
cum-Custodian had taken possession of the said property on
23/06/1984, the said property had vested in the Commissioner
and, therefore, even leasehold rights were extinguished and the
Plaintiff, therefore, had no right whatsoever in respect of the
said property.
Section 7 in Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd vs C.I.T., Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, ... on 4 September, 1990
In the capacity of a
intervenor he cannot challenge the auction
process by contending that he has a right to the
property and claim a separate relief for him,
keeping in view the law laid down in the case of
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (supra), we
are of the considered view that at the instance of
intervenor no relief could be granted in the
appeal proceedings initiated.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S.Saraswati Industrial Syndicate ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 10 March, 1999
'3. Shri V.S. Shroti, senior counsel for
respondent no. 1 objects with regards to
maintainability of this review application
mainly on two counts. The first ground is that
there is no error apparent on the face of the
record, the ground raised pertains to
interpretation of certain judgments and
therefore, review application is not maintainable
Page 31 of 40
21st February, 2024
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2024 23:59:50 :::
IA-963-2024 @ CONNECTED IA'S.DOC
on these grounds. The second ground is that at
the instance of intervenor the review is not
maintainable, it is said that that even if in the
appeal intervenor had any grievance he could
not claim any relief for himself as a intervenor,
he may have a right to intervene but as a
intervenor has no right to seek any relief to
himself in a proceeding, though, the application
is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on a
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax Haryana, Rohtak
MANU/SC/1602/1999 : 1999(3) SCC, 141 in
support of this contention.