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

1963 Supreme(MP) 24

P.V.DIXIT, K.L.PANDEY
TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.M.MATHUR, K.A.Chitale

DIXIT, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS opinion will also govern the opinion in Civil revision No. 178 of 1961.

( 2 ) THESE two references by our learned Brother Krishnan J. are under Chapter I, rule 9, Sub-rule (2) of the High Court Rule s. They arise out of two revision petitions under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act directed against two decisions of the Court of Small Causes, Indore, dismissing two suits filed by the petitioners for refund of octroi duty said to have been paid by the petitioners to the Municipal Corporation of Indore, in respect of certain goods brought within the limits of the Indore Municipal Corporation. As the references are under Chapter I, rule 9, Sub-rule (2) of the High Court Rules, we can only express an opinion on the questions on the basis of which a reference can be made to a large Bench under that rule. Under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, a reference is permissible if the case involves a question as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act or of any order in Council made thereunder, the Constitution or any order of the president made thereunder, or if the judge making the reference considers that the decision in the proceeding involves reconsideratio
















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