18 of 1897 is deemed to be still pending, though we do not so decide, any further action under the scheme Criminal Appeal Advocate in Chandigarh respect of the Baidyanath temple and its properties can be taken either by the District Judge of Burdwan or the Calcutta High Court only if the jurisdiction under s. 133 of the Constitution. 2006, which were also not mentioned in the depositions of the appellant (PW1) and Ranjeet Prasad (PW3) and the plaint. The High Court upheld the trial court findings regarding the various instances when PW3 represented himself as the landlord.
The High Court observed that the definitions of the terms ‘tenant’ and ‘landlord’ were not related to ownership of the suit property. Also, the question is whether TISCO is entitled to refund of royalty from 25th September, 2000 till June 2002 and if so, whether the High Court was right in denying that refund. Is the Act bad on the ground of extra-territorial operation, because it takes certain religious trusts situate in Bihar out of the purview. 92, Code of Civil Procedure ?
Prasad, for the appellants (in C. Mandir shebait for the time being and six pious Hindus who must be residents. In this context, it must immediately be noted that the contention of the State of Jharkhand is not that Rule 64B and Rule 64C of the MCR have retrospective effect. 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution. The High Court observed that the appellate court has not considered the tenancy agreements dated 20. The Act has also been impugned on the ground that it imposes an Unauthorised tax and also contravenes Art.
If that jurisdiction has come to an end in respect of the Baidyanath temple and its properties, then no question of any conflict of jurisdiction between two equally competent authorities arises at all, apart altogether from the more debatable question as to whether the Bihar Legislature on one side and the courts in Bengal on the other can be said at all to be equally competent authorities law firm in chandigarh for resitution of conjugal rights respect of a religious trust situate in Bihar.
A deed of trust was executed by the respondent on March II, 1938, when she was residing at D in the State of Bihar, in respect of the properties described in the Schedules referred to in the deed, some of which were situate outside the State of Bihar. The question really boils down to this. 226, 228, 229 (b) Art. 19 (1)(f); and (e) Arts. 2006, the High Court opined that the appellant could not be held to be the owner or landlord of the suit property on the basis of the exchange deed dated 23.
Once landlord-tenant relationship existed between the PW3 Ranjeet Prasad and the defendant Abdul Karim, the same should have been determined only as per the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The recitals also showed that the settlor had provided for the construction of two temples (jugal Mandir), in one of which was to be installed the deity Srigopal and other deities, and in the other the marble image of, her preceptor and that the temple, committee shall consist of the, Jugal.
If the answer to this question is in the negative, then all the hurdles created by the argument of Mr. Das must disappear; because if the Act is good, it must be bindingonall courts and no question of any conflict of jurisdiction can arise. In the trust deed she described herself as the settlor, and it was recited therein that the settlor had installed a deity named Iswar Srigopal in her house and had since been regularly worshiping and performing the puja of the said deity; and that she had been erecting a Nat Mandir to be named in memory of her deceased son.
39 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, and which authority can amend the Letters Patent. The Commissioner by his order dated May 30, 1959, rejected the application made by the petitioner for a licence on two grounds, namely, that he was not satisfied that from “the antecedents and resent conduct” of the petitioner it would be reasonable to think that the petitioner would keep good behaviour and would be able to prevent drunkenness or disorder among the persons frequenting the eating house.
of D and of whom at least four shall be Begalis. That being so, the question is whether TISCO is entitled to refund of the excess royalty paid from 10th August, 1998 (the date of the decision in SAIL) to 25th September, 2000 and if so whether the High Court was right lawyer in Chandigarh maintenance Section 125 & 24 denying that refund. PW3 Ranjeet Prasad was held to be the landlord of defendant Abdul Karim considering the agreements dated 20. Holding that there was no need to give a finding regarding default in the payment of rent or bonafide requirement when there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the appellant and the defendant Abdul Karim, the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents-tenants and dismissed the suit for eviction filed by the appellant.
Observing that there was no conveyance of title after the execution of the agreement dated 20. Aggrieved respondents, therefore, preferred a revision petition before the High Court. 92, Civil Procedure Code, is still preserved Top Law Firm in Chandigarh respect of it. 2006 and that Ranjeet Prasad had filed eviction suits as a landlord.