Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)Section 9 in Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948
Section 29 in The Defence of India Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989
23. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 lastly contended that in the Inquiry held under Section 9(3) it has been held that respondent No. 3 should be given possession of said flat since possession was taken from his father and that view being possible, this Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction should not interfere with such order. He placed reliance upon the Judgment of Apex Court In M/s. Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay. It is true that this Court In exercise of its Jurisdiction under Article 226 would not substitute a decision taken by Competent Authority simply because the decision sought to be substituted is better one but in a case where the decision taken by the authority below is erroneous in law, such decision cannot be allowed to stand. The impugned order falls in the later category.