Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1908 (1) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evision to the Collector of Sholapur. 4. On the 6th of April 1907 the Collector held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. 5. The plaintiff considering himself aggrieved by the Collector's order has presented this application to the High Court for revision. 6. Under the (sic) Courts Act of 1876 the Collector had no power of revision. 7. By Section 23 of the Marnlatdurs' Courts Act of 1906 it is provided as follows :- The Collector may call for and examine the record of any suit under this Act. Section 7 shows what a suit under this Act, is; it says all suits under this Act shall be commenced in the manner therein indicated, and there is a variation, though only a very slight one, from the requirements of Section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rds the general principles applicable to the case there was no controversy. On the one hand, it was not disputed that if the matter in question be a matter of procedure only, the petition is well founded. On. the other hand,' if it be more than a matter of procedure, if it touches a right in existence at the passing of the Act, it was conceded that, in accordance with a long line of authorities extending from the time of Lord N Coke to the present, day. the appellants would be entitled to succeed. The Judiciary Act is not retrospective by express enactment or by necessary inteudment; and therefore the only re-question is was the appeal to His Majesty in Council a right vested in the appellants at the date of the passing of the Act, or w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assed.'' 11. These cases are sufficient to justify in treating the decisions in Gulam Rasul v. Balu. Suyaji (l907)9 Bom. L.R. 527 and Vajechand Ramaji, v. Nandram Dalurmn (1907) 9 Bom. L.R. 1028 as not binding on us. 12. Now turning for a moment to the Bombay General Clauses Act J of 1904, we find it is there provided (Section 7) as follows: Where this Act or any Bombay Act made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such rig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates