Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)State Of Bombay vs Chhaganlal Gangaram Lavar on 15 July, 1954
In the case of State of Bombay v. Chhaganlal Gangaram Lavar (supra), the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court did not think fit to lay down the rule that the revisional power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code must be exercised within a reasonable time but left to the Legislature to take appropriate steps for imposing time limit upon the exercise of powers under Section 211. In 36 Bom. L.R. 242, Their Lordships of the Privy Council rested content with observing that the "amplitude of the powers conferred on the Commissioner by the section is striking". The Supreme Court, however, has gone a step further and held that the powers under Section 211 must be exercised within a reasonable period of time. In view of this decision, the likelihood of the serious mischief being caused by the exercise of revisional power under Section 211 at any point of time will greatly disappear.
The Gujarat University Act, 1949
Shripad Shivram Sardeshpande vs Shivram Bhikaji Patki on 15 January, 1934
But before we consider this question we must refer to one extreme contention advanced by Mr. S.N. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Municipality; which if successful, would enable him to by-pass this question and to eliminate most of the difficulties which beset his other arguments. The contention was that the Tharav had no binding effect ab initio and there was, therefore, no question of its continuing in force after the merger of the Baroda State. Now to this contention a preliminary objection was raised by Mr. B.G. Thakore, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Company. He submitted that this contention could not be allowed to be raised in these Letters Patent Appeals since it had not been taken before the learned Judge who heard the Second Appeals and for the matter of that it had not been taken even before the learned Assistant Judge or the learned trial Judge. He pointed out the limits of our jurisdiction hearing a Letters Patent Appeal and relied upon three decisions of the High Court of Bombay, namely, Shripad v. Shivram 36 Bom.
Punjabhai Dahyabhai Patel vs Shah Jayantilal Manilal And Ors. on 16 July, 1965
2 to 5 had no right to file an appeal against the decision of the Collector. In view of this finding of ours it is not necessary for us to deal with Mr. Shelat's counter contention that respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are 'persons interested' or 'persons aggrieved'. So also it is not necessary for us to refer to the case of Punjabhai v. Jayantilal reported in 6 G.L.R. 849 which deals with the question as to who is 'a person interested' or 'a person aggrieved'.
Hari Shankar vs Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury on 5 December, 1961
In the case of Hari Shanker and Ors. v. Rao Girdharilal Chowdhury reported in A.I.R. (1963) Supreme Court 693, the Supreme Court points out this distinction in the following terms: