Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing P.K. Ghosh vs Mrs. K. Dutt on 2 December, 1952

General Council Of The Church Of India ... vs Niranjan Ghose And Anr. on 23 February, 1971

16. Before I leave this topic it is necessary to consider the case of P.K. Ghosh v. Mrs. K. Dutt, where the effect on the provision of Clause 13 of the Letters Patent was considered in view of Section 16 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act (17 of 1950). In Section 16 of the said Act 17 of 1950 the language used was, inter alia, to the following effect:--
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Vysya Bank Ltd. vs Shankar Export Pvt. Ltd. on 5 September, 2000

In a single Bench decision of this Court, P.B. Mukherjee (as His Lordship then was) in the case of P.K. Ghosh v. Mrs. K. Dutta, held that section 16 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 had destroyed the jurisdiction of the High Court under clause 13 of the Letters Patent to entertain or try in the nature and descriptions made in that section of the Act. Paragraph 8 would be necessary for our purpose which are as follows :--
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Janardhan Srivastava vs Daryao Pershad on 7 September, 1976

(9) Shri Vijay Kishan relied upon the decision in P. K. Ghosh v. Mrs. K. Dutt for the proposition that the High Court had no power under the Letters Patent to transfer a rent control proceeding from the court of the Small Cause to the High Court. This decision was based on the peculiar provisions of section 16 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 which indicated the courts which would have the jurisdiction to try these proceedings and added that "no other court shall be competent to entertain or try such suit". This decision is distinguishable on two grounds. Firstly, no such words are contained in section 14 or in any other provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Secondly, it is not known if there was any provision in the West Bengal Act for an appeal to the High Court there under. At any rate there was no such appeal before the High Court in the Calcutta decision referred to above. P. B. Mukherji, J in that decision, did not consider the question whether the High Court could not exercise the power to transfer to itself a proceeding pending in a subordinate court under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code or whether such a power was negatived by section 16 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. The power of the High Court to act under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code has not been negatived by any provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 195S. On the other hand, in I hearing an appeal under section 39 the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code would apply and the High Court could invoke the power of transfer under section 24 thereof.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kalkhusru Nanabhoy Bharucha And Ors. vs Doss Maneckshaw Bharucha And Ors. on 16 June, 1983

The emerging position thus clearly is in favour of Mr. Cooper's contention that this Court's power to transfer under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent as also under the Code of Civil Procedure remains unaffected. Distinction between Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which relates to ordinary original civil jurisdiction, and Clause 13 of the Letters Patent relates to extraordinary original civil jurisdiction, has been succinctly brought out in the aforesaid ruling. Thus it is, that there is a contrary judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in P.K. Gosh v. K. Dutt, . However, so far as this Court is concerned, the question is no longer res integra .
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1