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

1957 Supreme(Gau) 70

J.N.DATTA
Haopha Tangkhul – Appellant
Versus
Vakam – Respondent


Advocates:
T.N. Bhattacharjee, for Petitioner; N. Ibotombi Singh, Govt. Advocate, for Opposite Party No. 1.

ORDER

This petition for revision has been preferred under S. 34 of the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955 and under Ss. 115 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, and is directed against the order dated 22-7-53, of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ukhrul in C. S. No. 335 of 1952-53, whereby he dismissed petitioners claim which was for Rs. 12/- on account of the price of a tree, which the opposite party was alleged to have felled and removed from the (Uyok) of the petitioner.

An appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner as the Hill Bench, but he returned the memo, of appeal by his order dated 22-11-56 on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, in view of the decision of this Court in Konsam Amujao Singh v. Paejathang Haokip, Writ Misc. Petn. No. 33 of 1953 D/-31-01-55 (reported in AIR 1955 Manipur 30) (A) whereby the order of the Chief Commissioner (Notification No. J/12/51/23, dated 23-5-1951) constituting the Deputy Commissioner as the Hill Bench and himself as the Chief Court for purposes of the Manipur State Hill Peoples Regulation, 1947 was pronounced to be ultra vires and of no force,

2. It might be stated at once, that there is nothing in the case, which would att




















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