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

2008 Supreme(SC) 1114

TARUN CHATTERJEE, AFTAB ALAM
Swatantravir Savarkar Pratisthan, Sangli – Appellant
Versus
Rayat Shikshan Sanstha, Satara – Respondent


Order

1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.The submission made on behalf of the appellant cannot be permitted to be raised in this Court in view of the fact that it was not at all advanced before the High Court. The submission was that the particular area is not within the purview of the Urban Land [Ceiling and Regulation] Act, 1976. According to the learned counsel for the appellant it was so made.

3.We are not inclined to exercise our discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution since this submission was not made before the High Court. Accordingly these appeals are dismissed. 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