Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.29 seconds)
Mohan Mulji vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 8 March, 1966 cites

Balkrishna Daji Gupte vs The Collector Bombay Suburban on 23 January, 1923

(5) Turning now to the first contention urged on behalf of the appellants, that contention proceeds on the hypothesis that the Collector or the Special Land Acquisition Officer acting under S. 18 is a Civil Court. But this hypothesis is in our opinion not well founded and cannot be sustained in view of the decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Balkrishna v. Collector, Bombay Suburban, 25 Bom LR 308 (AIR 1923 Bom 290. The question which arose in that case was whether a revisional application was competent from the order of the Collector refusing to make a reference and a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Macleod, C.J. and Crump, J., held that no such revisional application was competent and the ground on which both the learned Judges came to this conclusion was that the Collector was not a Court and was not discharging judicial functions, and, therefore, no revision lay against the order of the Collector under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next