Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.84 seconds)Bapu Apaji Potdar vs Kashinath Sadoba Gulmire on 22 December, 1916
It is further urged that, the possession of the land, which the plaintiff has obtained lawfully in pursuance to a sale, cannot be disturbed by the Municipality according to the ratio decidendi in Bapu Apaji v. Kashinath Sadoba (1916) I.L.R. 41 Bom. 438. These arguments require careful consideration, and will have to be considered when the question arises for decision. I desire to express no opinion in this case as to the effect of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 40, Sub-section (6) on the plaintiff's title to the land or to his right to retain possession thereof against the Municipality. It is sufficient for the purpose of this appeal to hold, and so far I feel clear, that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 40 Sub-section (6) affords no justification on the facts of this case for canceling the permission granted by the Municipality under Section 96 of the Bombay District Municipal Act. The order issued purports to be a sort of provisional order which is not contemplated by the section; and the purpose and the scheme of Section 96 do not lend any support to the suggestion that the Municipality can the permission granted under the section on such grounds.
Section 96 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Vithal Dhonddev Raikar vs The Alibag Municipality on 19 February, 1918
L.R. 65 and Vithal Dhonddew v. The Alibag Municipality (1918) I.L.R. 42 Bom. 629 : 20 Bom. L.R. 756 should not be applied to the present case. Whatever. the rights of the Municipality against the plaintiff in respect of this land may be, I am clear that the permission granted under Section 96 cannot be revoked and that the facts stated above, do not afford any ground to refuse to the plaintiff a relief by way of injunction confined to the order in question.
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Bombay University Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Emperor vs Kareem Ranjan Khoji on 23 November, 1916
I do not see any reason why the ratio decidendi in Emperor v. Kareem Ranjan (1916) 19 Bom.
The Ahmedabad Municipality vs Sulemanji Ismalji on 16 July, 1903
The case of The Ahmedabad Municipality v. Sulemanji (1903) I.L.R. 27 Bom. 618 is another instance in which the same learned Judges accepted the differentiation between executed and executory contracts in relation to Municipalities, which were then governed by the corresponding provisions of Section 30 of Bombay Act II of 1884.
1