Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BENNET, J.
Wazir Singh - Appellant
Versus
Nagar - Respondent
Decided On : 14-03-1934
JUDGMENT
Bennet, J. - This is an application for revision of an order by a Revenue Court to the following effect:
he arbitrator has not taken any evidence and has not determined any issue. This award is thus materially irregular. It is therefore sat aside.
2. This order was passed in a suit for arrears of rent amounting to Rupees 496-7-0. The Court was the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, that is, of an Assistant Collector of the First Class. The question is whether a revision lies in this Court u/s 253, Agra Tenancy Act, which states:
The High Court may call for the record of any suit or application which has been decided by any subordinate revenue Court and in which an appeal lies to the District Judge and in which no appeal lies to the High Court, etc.
3. Learned Counsel argued that the word "application" might refer to the application for filing the award. But it appears to me that the words suit" and "application" must be considered in the terms of Schedule 4, which is divided into groups A and 13, which are suits, and groups C, D, E and F, which are applications, and group G, which deals with appeals. Accordingly the word "application" does not cover the proceeding of the lower Court. The proceeding before the Court was a suit and the suit has not been decided. Accordingly under the terms of Section 253 no application in revision lies to this Court. The application therefore is refused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
