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

1972 Supreme(All) 185

HARISWARUP
Ramakant Bindal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Kameshwar Prasad, for Applicant.

Judgement

ORDER :- This is an application under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 381 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') praying for special leave to appeal against the order of the Tribunal. Certain land acquisition proceedings had taken place and the matter was referred to the Tribunal and the Tribunal under the proviso to Section 392 (372?) of the Adhiniyam demanded security for costs from the claimant. The applicant (sic). The applicant objected to the demand on the ground that the proviso was not applicable as the notification for acquisition had been issued prior to the commencement of the Adhiniyam. He also prayed for referring the matter to this Court under Section 113, C. P. C. The Tribunal has held that as the claim is being decided by the Tribunal in praesenti and it could award costs, the provision for demand of security for costs under the proviso will be applicable to the facts of the present case.

It has also been held that there is no point which may be referred to the High Court under Section 113, C. P. C. The application filed by the applicant for leave to appeal to the High Court has been rejected by the Chai





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