Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.28 seconds)Section 72 in The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950
Section 2 in The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001
26 Thus, there cannot be any dual opinion as regards responsibility
of the first appellate court while dealing with the appeal as contemplated by
Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The District Court, while
rendering decision in the inquiry in an application under Section 72 of the Act
has to scrutinise all the evidence and record findings on each of the issues
involved in the matter. In the instant case, as stated earlier, learned District
Judge has devoted whole of the judgment in reproducing facts or narration
of the proceedings or for reproducing extracts from annexures presented on
record. As stated earlier, decision rendered by District Judge cannot be
considered as judgment in the eye of law. At this stage, it would be
appropriate to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court and
expectations from the appellate forum while rendering decision in an
appeal, as laid down in the matter of Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari,
reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179, wherein it is observed thus: