Skip to content


Parapa BIn Shivapa Vs. Raghapa BIn Hanmapa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1877)ILR1Bom217
AppellantParapa BIn Shivapa
RespondentRaghapa BIn Hanmapa
Excerpt:
.....was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no.....michael westropp, c.j.1. there were issues settled in this cause in the presence of the defendant's pleader, who, moreover, was permitted to cross-examine and did cross-examine the witnesses. hence there is no ground for maintaining that the decree of the subordinate judge was ex parte. we reverse the decree of the district judge, and direct him to proceed to hear the appeal on the merits. costs of the special appeal to abide the result.
Judgment:

Michael Westropp, C.J.

1. There were issues settled in this cause in the presence of the defendant's pleader, who, moreover, was permitted to cross-examine and did cross-examine the witnesses. Hence there is no ground for maintaining that the decree of the Subordinate Judge was ex parte. We reverse the decree of the District Judge, and direct him to proceed to hear the appeal on the merits. Costs of the special appeal to abide the result.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //