Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.34 seconds)

Ganpati Ram Bhande And Ors. vs Baliram Raghunath Jadhav And Ors. on 8 March, 1973

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 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

C. Abdul Shukoor Saheb vs Arji Papa Rao And Others on 14 November, 1962

19. The aforesaid pronouncements would clearly show that adjudication of possession is the main part of the enquiry under rule 11 and once possession is so adjudicated, it will become necessary to see as to the character of the possession, that is, whether the claimant is in possession on his own account. It was urged by Shri Bobde, that a contention that the document is sham can fall for consideration in a proceeding under rule 11 as according to him that would have relevance in discerning as to whether the possession claimed by the claimant is on behalf of the defaulter. Counsel maintained, the decision in Arji Papa Rao's case, , does not rule out the said proposition. The relevant portion in the said judgment has already been extracted early.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 54 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next