Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.28 seconds)Section 7 in The Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
The Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887
The Punjab Tenancy Rules
Magiti Sasamal vs Pandab Bissoi on 20 September, 1961
In Magiti Sasamal v. Pandab Bissoi, [1962] 3
S.C.R. 673, the appellant had filed in the Civil Court a
suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents
from entering the lands in suit on the allegation that the
lands belonged to him and were in his cultivatory possession
for many years and the respondents had
103
no right or title and had never cultivated them. The
respondents contended that they were tenants of portions of
the said lands and were in cultivating possession of the
same as tenants. The question which arose for decision was
whether having regard to the provisions of section 7(1) of
the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948, the Civil Court had
jurisdiction to entertain the suit which involved a dispute
as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties. It was held that even on a liberal construction of
section 7(1) of the Act, it cannot be held that disputes as
regards the existence of the relationship of landlord and
tenant fall to be determined by the Collector under that
section. Disputes which are entrusted to the Collector under
section 7(1) are the simple disputes specified therein in
the five categories and do not include a serious dispute as
to the relationship between the parties as landlord and
tenant.
Section 11 in The Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Section 98 in The Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Section 99 in The Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
The Secretary Of State vs Mask And Co. on 15 March, 1940
In Secretary of State v. Mask and
company, A.I.R. 1940 P.C. lOS at p. 110 the Privy
Council at page 236 of the Report has observed
thus:
Dhulabhai And Others vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another on 5 April, 1968
In Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [ 1968] 3
S.C.R. 662 Hidayatullah, C.J., speaking for the Court,
on the analysis of the various decisions cited before
the Court ex pressing diverse views, called out as many
as 7 propositions; out of them the first two which are
material for our purposes are these:
'(1) Where the statute gives a finality to
the orders of the special tribunal the civil
Court's jurisdiction must be held to be
excluded if there is adequate remedy to do
what the civil Courts would normally do in a
suit. Such provision, however, does not
exclude those cases where the provisions of
the particular Act have not been complied
with or the statutory tribunal has not acted
in conformity with the fundamental principles
of judicial procedure.