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

1964 Supreme(All) 48

G.C.MATHUR, V.BHARGAVA, S.D.KHARE
BAL GOPAL DAS – Appellant
Versus
MOHAN SINGH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.P.BHARGAWA, N.MISHRA

V. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE question referred for the opinion of the Full Bench is " is the Tribunal constituted under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 (Act No. LXX of 1951) a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 Civil procedure Code? Does a revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code lie against an order passed by such a tribunal?"

( 2 ) I have had the benefit of reading the judgments proposed to be delivered by my brothers S. D. Khare and G. C. Mathur, JJ. , but I regret I am unable to agree with them. This question came up before me in an earlier case of Sunder Das v. Lach-man Das, AIR 1957 All 352. Having heard learned counsel on the present occasion and having given very careful consideration to the views expressed by my brothers in their proposed judgments, I still End no reason to change the view thai was taken by me earlier in the case cited above.

( 3 ) IN the course of arguments before us. it appears to have been assumed that, whenever a judicial function is being exercised by any person, that person can only be described as, and must belong to, one of the two classes, a Court or a per-sona designata. I do not consider t

























































































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