Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Ebrahim Saleji vs Abdulla Ali Reza And Anr. on 24 October, 1950

Krishnaji Ramji Vinarkar vs Shamsunder Jagannath Shukla on 8 March, 1954

8. The Court in that case overruled a judgment of a single Judge of this Court reported to -- 'Ebrahim Salejl v. Abdulla Ali', who had taken a different view. My Lord the Chief Justice in delivering the judgment of the Court observed (p. 391) : "Therefore the question that I have to address myself to is whether the question as to whether the defendant is a tenant or licensee is a question which arises out of the Act or any of its provisions. Really, this question is not a question that has anything to do with "the Act or any of its provisions. It is a question which is collateral, and which has got to be decided before it could be said that the Act has any application at all. The very application or the Act depends upon the defendant being a tenant. If he is not a tenant, the Act has no application, and therefore before the Court can apply, any provisions of the Act or decide any question arising out of the Act it has got to decide whether the defendant is a tenant who can claim the protection of the Act. It is a jurisdictional question which has got to be determined in order to decide whether the particular Court in which the suit has been filed has or has not jurisdiction to try the suit, and to my opinion Section 28 does not deal with jurisdictional questions which have got to be decided 'in limine' before the matters arising under the Act can be considered by the Court."
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Gorakhram Gokalchand vs Raizada Topandas on 19 October, 1959

17. Mr. Khambatta strongly relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Ebrahim Saleji v. Abdulla Alin , where the learned Judge Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar, as he then was, held that Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, includes within its jurisdiction all suits and proceedings where the trial Court has to consider the claims or questions arising out of the Act, and it makes no difference whether such claim or question arises from the allegations made in the plaint or those made in the written statement. An appeal lies under Section 29 of the Act against a decree or order made in the suit whether it is in favour of the plaintiff or against him.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963

We may state here that the decision in Govindram Salamatrai (2) , had itself over-ruled an earlier decision of the same court in Ebraham Saleji v. Abdulla Ali Raza (3), where Gajendragadkar J. (as he then was) had taken the view that s. 28 of the Act included within its jurisdiction all suits and proceedings where the trial court has to consider all claims or questions arising out of the Act., and it makes no difference whether such claim or question arises from the allegations made in the plaint or those made in the (1) [1959] S.C.R. 367.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 34 - S K Das - Full Document
1