Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)Nara Narayan Mandal vs Aghore Chandra Ganguli And Anr. on 18 April, 1935
The same question was decided in Nara Narayan Mondal v. Aghore Chandra Ganguli (1935) 39 C W N 971, with reference to the District Judge acting under Sections 36-44, Bengal Municipal Act, and though there, were different considerations to be taken into account in that case, the same reasoning applies as to the superintendence of this Court in reference to the decision of the Magistrate of the district under Rule 1-A. of the Rules under the Local. Self Government Act.
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 4 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Manindra Chandra Nandi vs Provas Chandra Mitter And Ors. on 13 November, 1923
Similarly in Manindra Chandra Nandi v. Provas Chandra Mitter it was held that the function of a Returning Officer in deciding a question as to the eligibility of a candidate is in the nature of a judicial function and his decision is in the nature of a judicial decision. It seems clear moreover that the Magistrate of the district acting under Rule 1-A is not merely a persona designata, for the definition of Magistrate of a district contained in the Local Self-Government Act includes any Magistrate subordinate to the Magistrate of the district to whom he may delegate all or any of his powers under the Act. Thus it is clear that he is not. a persona designata, for as. such he would have no Magistrates subordinate to him. We find, therefore, that he is appointed to decide disputes under Rule 1-A of the Act in the capacity as Magistrate of the district.
Section 148 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Mahedar Rahaman Mia vs Kanti Chandra Basu on 17 May, 1934
2. The application is opposed on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order inasmuch as the learned District Magistrate, acting under Rule 1-A, did not constitute a Court over which this Court has superintendence within the meaning of Section 107, Government of India Act, 1915. There can be no doubt that this Court ordinarily has superintendence over the judicial work of all Judicial Officers in so far as they are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, and there seems to be equally no doubt that the Magistrate of the District in deciding a dispute under Rule 1-A of the Rules under the Local Self-Government Act, is acting judicially. It was held in Mahendra Rahman Mia v. Kanti Chandra Bose that in deciding disputes under Section 26-B of the Rules as to the qualification of electors for membership of a Local Board, the District Magistrate is acting judicially.
1