BAL GOPAL DAS Vs. MOHAN SINGH
LAWS(ALL)-1964-2-3
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 19,1964

BAL GOPAL DAS Appellant
VERSUS
MOHAN SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NATIONAL TELEPHONE CO. LTD. V. POSTMASTER GENERAL [REFERRED TO]
SHAH CHATURBHUJ V. SHAH MAUJI RAM [REFERRED TO]
MAHABAL SINGH V. RAM RAJ [REFERRED TO]
PARTHASARADHI NAIDU V. KOTESWARA RAO [REFERRED TO]
COOPER V. WILSON [REFERRED TO]
MAKNAN LAL V. SECY. OF STATE [REFERRED TO]
RAJAH OF VENKATAGIRI V. SHAIKH MAHABOOB SAHEB [REFERRED TO]
RAM AUTAR MISIR V. MAHABIR SHUKUL,1942 ALL WR 325 [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN RAUTERA V. KRISHNA CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH TEXTILE MILLS LTD. V. MAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
MAQBOOL HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
S A VENKATARANAN PETITIONER VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BRAJNANDAN SINHA VS. JYOTINARAIN [REFERRED TO]
VIRINDAR KUMAR SATYAWADI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
HANSKUMAR KISHAN CHAND UNION OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL TALKIES LIMITED VS. DWARKA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
SUNDAR DAS VS. LACHMAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
PHUL KUMARI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
LAL CHAND VS. BHARAT NIDHI LTD [REFERRED TO]
RAM SARAN TEWARI VS. RAJ BAHADUR VARMA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PRAKASH TIMBERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SUSHMA SHINGLA [LAWS(ALL)-1995-7-77] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MYSORE PAPER MILLS LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2003-8-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

V. Bhargava, J. - (1.)The question referred for the opinion of the Full Bench is " Is the Tribunal constituted under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 (Act No. LXX of 1951) a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 Civil Procedure Code? Does a revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code lie against an order passed by such a tribunal?"
(2.)I have had the benefit of reading the judgments proposed to be delivered by my brothers S. D. Khare and G. C. Mathur, JJ., but I regret I am unable to agree with them. This question came up before me in an earlier case of Sunder Das v. Lach-man Das, AIR 1957 All 352. Having heard learned counsel on the present occasion and having given very careful consideration to the views expressed by my brothers in their proposed judgments, I still End no reason to change the view thai was taken by me earlier in the case cited above.
(3.)In the course of arguments before us. it appears to have been assumed that, whenever a judicial function is being exercised by any person, that person can only be described as, and must belong to, one of the two classes, a Court or a per-sona designata. I do not consider that these are the only two classes by which such authorities must necessarily be covered. The word 'tribunal' has been used in the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), with which I am concerned, and has also been used in other statutes and. I do not see why every tribunal must necessarily be covered by either the word 'Court' or the word 'persona designata'. The Constitution itself, in Article 227, mentions Courts and tribunals and thus seems to distinguish between a Court and a tribunal without specifically envisaging that every tribunal must necessarily be a persona designata. In my opinion, therefore, it is not at all necessary in this case to go into the question whether a tribunal under the Act is a persona designata or not. The question that is to be seen is whether it is a Court within the meaning of Section 115 Civil Procedure Code.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.