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

1986 Supreme(Guj) 79

M.B.SHAH
SHIVLAL THAKERSHI GOTECHA – Appellant
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: M.I.HAVA, SURESH M.SHAH

M. B. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) IN these three petitions the common question which requires determination is whether the Urban Land Tribunal constituted under sec. 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Urban Land Ceiling Act has jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default or whether the provisions of Order 41 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the Tribunal and that the Tribunal can dismiss the appeal for default.

( 2 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 2635 of 1986 the Additional Urban Land Tribunal and Ex-Officio Secretary to the Government. Revenue Department Ahmedabad by the order dated 15/03/1986 dismissed the Appeal No. APL/ul/rajkot-138/1983 filed under sec. 32 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act on the ground that when the appeal was called out neither the appellants nor their advocate were present. Restoration application was filed by the petitioner. In the said application number of grounds for restoration were given. The Tribunal dismissed the said application by holding that there was no sufficient ground shown for re-admitting the appeal.

( 3 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 2660 of 1986 the same Tribunal by the order












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