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

1923 Supreme(Mad) 420

RAMESAM
Kokku Parthasaradhi Naidu Garu – Appellant
Versus
Chintalachervu Koteswara Rao – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.

1. This is an application for the revision of the decision of the District Judge acting under the powers conferred upon him by the rules framed under the Madras Local Boards Act of 1920. By the Rule 1 of the rules issued by the Local Government under the powers conferred on them by Section 199 (2) (c), "No election of a Member or of a President of a District, Taluq, or Union Board shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with these rules, to the District or Subordinate Judge having jurisdiction. " A preliminary point is taken that this Court has no power of revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure over the decision of a District or Subordinate Judge when acting under that rule. That depends on whether the Judges therein referred to are acting as Courts, or acting merely as persona designata, that is to say, persons selected to act in the matter in their private capacity and not in their capacity as Judges. There has been considerable conflict of opinion on this point since the coming into force of this Act, and 1 do not think that the decisions that have been given on the matter are

















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