Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Sambhaji Baloji Solankar vs The Mamlatdar Of Baramati And Ors. on 4 August, 1952 cites

Province Of Bombay vs Hormusji Manekji on 12 July, 1947

(5) The Government Pleader has relied on two decisions of the Privy Council. One is in --'Province of Bombay v. Hormusji Manekji', AIR 1947 PC 200 (D). In that case two agreements were entered into between the Government and the respondent before the Privy Council and the effect of the agreement was that the respondent was allowed to use the land for non-agricultural purposes on certain terms including a stipulated annual assessment at a concession rate. The respondent erected certain structures and the case of the Government was that this was in contravention of the agreements, and the Collector ordered him to pay a penalty and also enhanced assessment. An appeal to the Commissioner was rejected and then there was an appeal to the Governor in Council who passed an order directing that the non-agricultural assessment at the full standard rate should be levied on the entire holding of the respondent. The respondent then filed a suit alleging that the order of the Governor in Council was 'ultra vires' and for a declaration that the Government of Bombay was not entitled to recover any assessment in excess of the amounts payable by him under the agreements.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

The Secretary Of State For India vs Anant Krishnaji Nulkar on 27 November, 1933

(6) The other decision of the Privy Council relied upon by the Government Pleader is an earlier decision in -- 'Secretary of State v. Anant Krishnaji', . There the Government lands were granted by the Collector to the respondent free of occupancy price and free from assessment. The Commissioner, acting under section 211, made an order directing that the proper occupancy price should be recovered from the respondent, and on his failure to pay the same, the lands were forfeited to Government, and the Privy Council held that the order of the Commissioner was valid under section 211 as the grantee failed to implement the Commissioner's order. In that ease the forfeiture resulted by reason of the fact that the respondent failed to pay the occupancy price fixed by the Commissioner. In the present case the Government are not seeking to forfeit the 'sanad' on the ground that the petitioner has failed to carry out any term of the 'sanad' or any term as altered by the order of the Collector or the Commissioner. What the Government are purporting to do is to can-eel the 'sanad' on the ground that the 'sanad' was got by the petitioner by misrepresentations.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Government Of The Province Of Bombay vs The Ahmedabad Sarangpur Mills Co., Ltd. on 4 August, 1943

(4) The Government Pleader has drawn our attention to a judgment of a divisional bench reported in --'Government of Bombay v. Ah-medabad Sarangpur Mills Co., Ltd.', AIR 1944 Bom 244 (A). All that was held by Sir John Beaumont, C.J., and Rajadhyaksha J. in that case was that the Commissioner cannot under section 211 cancel an agreement made by the Collector, not as a subordinate officer of the Commissioner, but as agent for the Secretary of State, and entered into by the Collector in that capacity with third parties. That was the only question that that bench was considering, and the Government Pleader wants us to infer from that decision that if the agreement had been entered into by the Collector, not as an agent of the Secretary of State but as a subordinate officer of the Commissioner, then that agreement could have been set aside by the Commissioner under section 211, and the Government Pleader argues that in this case the agreement entered into by the Deputy Collector was not as agent for the Secretary of State or the Union of India, but as a subordinate officer of the Collector or the Commissioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1