HARI CHAND AGGARWAL versus BATALA ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

HARI CHAND AGGARWAL versus BATALA ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

The Additional District Magistrate, although empowered under s. 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate, cannot be treated as holding the office of District Magistrate for the purposes of exercising powers under s. 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, when the Central Government's notification specifically refers to 'District Magistrate' and not 'Additional District Magistrate'.

Parties
Appellant: Hari Chand Aggarwal; Respondent: Batala Engineering Co. Ltd.; Respondent: Additional District Magistrate (Gurdaspur)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 September 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated April 22, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 719 of 1964
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Delegation of Powers, Requisitioning Property, Interpretation of Statutory Notifications
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Property Law Delegation of Powers Requisitioning Property Interpretation of Statutory Notifications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hari Chand Aggarwal

Appellant

Batala Engineering Co. Ltd.

Respondent

Additional District Magistrate (Gurdaspur)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated April 22, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 719 of 1964

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Additional District Magistrate, empowered under s. 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could exercise powers delegated to District Magistrates under s. 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962

Ratio Decidendi

The Additional District Magistrate, although empowered under s. 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate, cannot be treated as holding the office of District Magistrate for the purposes of exercising powers under s. 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, when the Central Government's notification specifically refers to 'District Magistrate' and not 'Additional District Magistrate'.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Writ petition succeeds
  • Impugned order of requisitioning quashed