Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Uttamrao S/O Baliramji Janolkar vs Mahadeo S/O Tulshiramji Mankar And ... on 20 September, 2019
cites
Section 70 in The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012
In the light of those observations which are not under challenge,
the ratio of the decisions in Union of India and A.Chettiyar (supra) do not assist the
case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
A. Andisamy Chettiar vs A. Subburaj Chettiar on 8 December, 2015
Referring to the
decisions in Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and anr (2012) 8 SCC 148 and
A.Andisamy Chettiyar Vs. A. Subburaj Chettiyar (2015) 7 SCC 713, it was
submitted that the requirements of the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the
Code were not duly satisfied. No interference in that regard therefore was called
for.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K.Venkataramiah vs A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors on 12 February, 1963
Referring to the judgment of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, it was
submitted that the observations made in those applications were not kept in mind
in true spirit. Only by observing that the petitioner had failed to act diligently in
producing those documents before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, the
aspect whether there was any substantial cause for permitting the appellant to
adduce additional evidence was not gone into. This approach had resulted in
prejudice being caused to the petitioner. Relying upon the decision in
K.Venkatramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy & ors. AIR 1963 SC 1526, it was
submitted that the appellate Court had ample power to permit additional evidence
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:35:22 :::
5 WP6342.19(J)
on the ground that it was required "for any other substantial cause". He also
referred to decision in Rahul Sudhir Ghare and ors. Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner
and anr., 2008 (Suppl.)B.C.R. 379 to urge that the scope of provisions of Section
70(3) of the said Act was wider than the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the
Code. Thus by not considering these aspects in the proper perspective grave
prejudice was caused to the petitioner.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Prabhakar Sambhu Choudhary vs Laxman Baban Mali And Ors on 1 April, 2016
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have
perused the documents placed on record. As regards the aspect of maintainability
of the present writ petition, it is seen that the provisions of Section 72 of the said
Act now stand amended as result of which the remedy of further appeal for
challenging the order passed on an application filed under Section 72(2) of the said
Act stands deleted. Since there is no further statutory remedy provided for
challenging the order passed in exercise of the provisions of Section 72(2) of the
said Act by the Court, such challenge by filing the writ petition under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India is permissible. There is no bar of any kind so
as to prevent such challenge being entertained. The decision of the Full Bench in
Prabhakar Sambhu Chaudhary (supra) holds that an appeal under Section 72(4) of
the said Act is not subjected to the restrictions and limitations of Section 100 of the
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 13:35:22 :::
7 WP6342.19(J)
Code. After this decision the provisions of Section 72 of the said Act have been
amended and hence the ratio of this decision does not substantiate the preliminary
objection sought to be raised on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The
challenge as raised is therefore liable to be adjudicated.
Vijay Bhimrao Bhandare vs Pradeep Namdeo Hatkar And Anr on 24 April, 2019
The learned Senior Advocate also referred
to the decision in Arun s/o Bhimrao and others Vs. Pradeep s/o Prabhakarrao
Mahalle and others, 2017(6) Mh.L.J.515, in support of his submissions. It was thus
submitted that the impugned judgments were liable to be set aside.
1