Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
, J
Damomal Kausomal Raisinghani v. Union of India
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the application did not survive. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner challenges order reducing claim. (Para 2) |
| 3. jurisdiction of third respondent is questioned. (Para 3) |
| 4. preliminary objections regarding delay and jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 5. court examines authority's power to review claims. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 6. order quashed and previous decision restored. (Para 10) |
| 7. decision on costs awarded. (Para 11) |
1. Civil Application No. 2804 of 1965 was only an application for sending for the record. Certified copies of the relevant record have been produced and shown to the petitioner. This application no more survives.
2. Special Civil Application No. 588 of 1964 is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. By this petition the petitioner seeks to get quashed the order dated 31st October 1962 made by respondent No. 3 Mr. Ajwani, the Additional Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. By this order the third respondent has reopened the verified claim of the petitioner and has in effect reduced it from Rs. 4,710 to Rs. 500. The facts in brief are these. The petitioner originally belonged to Nawabshah, a place in Sind. That ter
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
