https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277402 The SC held that a single judge of the HC at Calcutta had jurisdiction to hear a reference regarding property forfeiture under sections 431-432 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. The court distinguished between forfeiture as criminal penalty versus administrative action, ruling that forfeiture under the Municipal Act was not a criminal punishment since the relevant offense carried only fine as penalty under section 500. The proviso to rule 9 restricting single judge jurisdiction applied only to criminal forfeiture orders, not administrative forfeitures. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the HC judge's jurisdiction. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jun 2025 13:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277402 The SC held that a single judge of the HC at Calcutta had jurisdiction to hear a reference regarding property forfeiture under sections 431-432 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. The court distinguished between forfeiture as criminal penalty versus administrative action, ruling that forfeiture under the Municipal Act was not a criminal punishment since the relevant offense carried only fine as penalty under section 500. The proviso to rule 9 restricting single judge jurisdiction applied only to criminal forfeiture orders, not administrative forfeitures. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the HC judge's jurisdiction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277402