Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Daulat Ram And Anr. vs Huma Nand And Ors. on 15 January, 1965 cites

Addanki Tiruvenkata Thata Desika ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 7 November, 1963

8. Before discussing the question, whether Sub-sections (2) (c) and (4) of Section 12 bar the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to try the question whether a particular person was or was not a tenant, it will be useful to refer to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in Addanki Tiruvenkata Thata Desika Charyulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1964 S C 807. One of the questions, decided by their Lordships, in that case, was whether Section 9 (4) (c), read with Section 9 (6) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Roytwari) Act, bars the jurisdiction of a Civil Court from trying a question, decided by the Settlement Officer, under Section 9 (1) of that Act. Section 9 of the Madras Act, as quoted in the judgment of their Lordships, was as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Firm Adarsh Industrial Corporation vs Market Committee, Karnal on 29 January, 1962

14. The authorities--Kishnu Sah v. Harinandan, AIR 1963 Pat 79 (FB), Firm Adarsh Industrial Cooperation v. Market Committee, Karnal, AIR 1962 Punj 426 ;and Hanuman Prasad v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1957 Raj 281,--cited, on behalf of the appellants, are not applicable to the case, in hand. The Patna authority was under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. That Act did not empower the Controller to decide finally about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. In the instant case, the Abolition Act confers jurisdiction on the Compensation Officer to give a decision on the dispute about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next