Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.50 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Limitation Act, 1963
Queen-Empeess vs Tribhovan Manekchand And Ors. on 10 October, 1884
10. It will also be necessary to see what is the nature of the order that was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal when he directed that the property should be treated as unclaimed property. An order under. Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed at the conclusion of a trial only concludes immediate right to possession but this does not conclude the right or title of any person to the ownership of the property. The real owner may proceed against the holder of the articles and it can not be said that there is any necessity of having that order set aside. Reference may usefully be made with regard to this aspect of the matter to the decision reported in Queen-Empress v. Trivhovan Manekchand, ILR 9 Bom 131, and observations at p. 134.
Section 13 in The Court-fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
M.S. Bhopshetti vs B.V. Bhat on 13 October, 1939
9. It seems that the learned Additional District Judge has not considered this matter by reference to the wording of Article 14 in the first column at all. There is no doubt that the order was passed in exercise of the powers by the appellate Court under Section 517 read with Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order was not passed in any administrative capacity. There was a list before the Court, one side was claiming right to restoration of property and the other side was disputing that right. The decision was given in the litigation, and we fail to see therefore how such an order could be said either to be an act of the officer of the Government or the order of the officer of the Government. If any authority is needed for this proposition we need refer to the following decisions of this Court viz. Govinda Gala v. Ganu Abaji, 10 Bom LR 749, Bullappa v. Tippangowda and Bhopshetti v. Bhat, 42 Bom LR 223 : (AIR, 1940 Bom 188). The law is therefore well-settled that a i judicial order is not an act or order of an officer of the Government. The claim of the plaintiffs therefore is not covered by Article 14 of the Limitation Act at all.
The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs Lown Karan Marwari on 8 April, 1920
11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the Criminal appeal decided on 26-6-1951 came to the conclusion that the accused-appellant before him had apparently not claimed the property and therefore the property was liable to be treated as unclaimed property. What seems to have been forgotten is that the accused in that case was Hazarimal and not the partnership firm. The plaint claim is laid by the partnership firm known as Jagannath Hazarimal firm of which not only the accused (Hazarimal) but two other persons are partners. The rights of the partners in respect of the property could not possibly be adjudicated upon by the learned Additional Session Judge in making the order regarding disposal of the property under Section 517 read with Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This aspect of the case does not seem to have been borne In mind in dealing with the question of limitation of the nature of the order that was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. In our opinion, it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to claim a declaration for setting aside the order because the real dispute between the parties is whether the plaintiffs are able to establish their right to ownership of the property.
Govinda Bala vs Ganu Abaji on 14 July, 1908
9. It seems that the learned Additional District Judge has not considered this matter by reference to the wording of Article 14 in the first column at all. There is no doubt that the order was passed in exercise of the powers by the appellate Court under Section 517 read with Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order was not passed in any administrative capacity. There was a list before the Court, one side was claiming right to restoration of property and the other side was disputing that right. The decision was given in the litigation, and we fail to see therefore how such an order could be said either to be an act of the officer of the Government or the order of the officer of the Government. If any authority is needed for this proposition we need refer to the following decisions of this Court viz. Govinda Gala v. Ganu Abaji, 10 Bom LR 749, Bullappa v. Tippangowda and Bhopshetti v. Bhat, 42 Bom LR 223 : (AIR, 1940 Bom 188). The law is therefore well-settled that a i judicial order is not an act or order of an officer of the Government. The claim of the plaintiffs therefore is not covered by Article 14 of the Limitation Act at all.
1