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

1961 Supreme(All) 163

M. C. DESAI, T. RAMABHADRAN
LAL CHAND – Appellant
Versus
BHARAT NIDHI LTD. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.S.PATHAK, S.N.KACKAR

DESAI, C. J.

( 1 ) I agree with my brother Ramabhadran that the Tribunal established under the Displaced persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (No. 70 of 1951) is not a court subordinate to this Court within the meaning of Section 115, C. P. C. In Braj Nandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain, (S) AIR 1956 SC 66, the Supreme Court has held that prima facie, a subordinate court within the meaning of Section 115 means a court subordinate to the High Court in the hierarchy of courts. The Tribunal, as such, is not a court in the hierarchy of courts. The Legislature; went out of its way to use the word "tribunal". Although the powers of the Tribunal were conferred upon a Civil Judge, it was not satisfied with conferring jurisdiction under the Act upon the Civil Judge having territorial jurisdiction, but went out of its way to constitute a Tribunal, though to be presided over by a civil Judge. The provisions of the Act show that it was not the intention of the Legislature that the Civil Judge should exercise the jurisdiction, conferred by the Act as a Civil Judge, but to create a new court, though to be presided over by a Civil Judge, It contains provisions such as sections 26, 28, 40 and 53 suggesting tha




























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