SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(SC) 2

A.C.GUPTA, N.L.UNTWALIA, V.R.KRISHNA IYER
Madhaodas – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur – Respondent


V.R.KRISHNA IYER, J.

(1) THIS appeal by special leave raises questions under S. 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. One point urged before us was that the revision which was allowed by action suo motu by the Commissioner under that provision was invalid being barred under the proviso to S. 45(2) of the Act. Apart from the fact that there is no merit in it, counsel for the appellant now prays that the order of the Commissioner being one of remand, he may be permitted to withdraw the appeal itself. We permit him to do so. Of course, he will be allowed, as directed by the order of remand itself, to urge contentions on the merits to the extent allowed in the remand order. In these circumstances the appeal is allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed on that basis. There will be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top