LawCite Search | LawCite Markup Tool | Help | Feedback Law Cite

Revenue 'Officer but for the refund of the amount levied from patent errors of law are legal mis him in excess of what was actually due conduct on which Courts can, in their [P 88, C 1, 2 ] inherent powers, set aside the award Tahilram Maniram--for Appellant under S 14 of the Arbitration Act Whether the Courts should do so or Tolasing Khushalsing--for Respon should only remit the award is a matdents ter on which no hard and fast rules Raymond, A J C --Mir Budho can be laid down, depending as it Khan was the Jagirdar of certain land does, on the peculiar circumstances of in Deh Vagoori which he had leased each case to the respondent (defendant) Pahlu- mal Ukermal Two survey numbers In the present case, for the reasons stated in my previous judgment, I amof this Jagir land had been let for of opinion that Raymond, Additional cultivation for 1916-17 to Hot Khan Judicial Commissioner in deciding asappellant-plaintiff by Usman deceased who was the maurusi hari thereof In he did on the pleadings did not exceed his plaint Hot Khan stated that he his jurisdiction and his order is not liable to revision on that ground paid Rs 12 as lapo for the two survey numbers and the other dues were pay It follows that on the fourth ques tion in my opinion the proper order able according to the usage prevailing should be that the application for in the jagir but that the lessee Pahlu- revision should be dismissed and themal insisted on enhanced rates and order of the lower Court confirmed made a written application to the Mukhtiarkar under S 86, Bombay Land Petition dismissed Revenue Code asking for assistance in recovering dues at certain rates from     1

Cases Referring to this Case

Case Name	Citation(s)	Court	Jurisdiction	Date †	Full Text		Citation Index
G P Gunnis & Co Ltd v Amanmal Tulsidas	[1924] AllINRprSind 25	All India Reporter - Sind	India	6 Mar 1923	AsianLII