Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 76 (1.33 seconds)
Documents citing Dattatraya Krishna Jangam vs Jairam Ganesh Gore on 4 September, 1964

Chamanlal Dutta vs Jharna Ghosh And Ors. on 5 February, 1981

7. Shri Shah submitted that in view of the observations of Chagla, C.J. in Shiavax Camabata v. Sunderdas Ebji's case which were approved by the Full Bench in Dattatraya Krishna v. Jairam Ganesh's case, a suit such as the present one filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was not covered by the provisions either of section 28 of the Rent Act or section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Jamnadas Dharamdas vs Dr. John Joseph Ferreira on 23 October, 1969

In the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dattatraya v. Jairam in connection with the question of jurisdiction it was pointed out that in order to determine which Court has jurisdiction to try a suit, the Court should read the plaint as a whole and ascertain the real nature of the suit and what in substance the plaintiff has asked for. The Court referred to the several previous decisions wherein it was observed that the jurisdiction of the Court should ordinarily be determined at the time of the institution of a suit when the plaint is filed, that the plea of the defendant will not determine or change the forum and that in order to decide whether a suit comes within the purview of Section 28 what must be considered is what the suit as framed in substance is and what the relief claimed therein is. The words used are 'relating to recovery of rent or possession' and not 'for recovery of rent or possession'. The words 'relating to' are very wide and would include any suit or proceeding in connection with or having a direct bearing on the question of possession of the premises. Even if, therefore, the suit is not for possession, if the relief claimed in the suit is in regard to or in respect of recovery of possession, it will come within the ambit of this section. Reference was made to the two decisions which we have referred to above with approval of the principle that under Section 28 the rent Court has jurisdiction not only to decide the questions referred to in the section, but also all matters which are incidental or ancillary to the determination of these questions.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Navyug Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. And ... vs Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal And Anr. on 10 March, 2005

(12) The observations made in Ranjit Patiraj Chanbe v. Behran Sheriar Irani, 1963(65) Bom.L.R. 464 at p. 466 and in Dattatraya Krishna Jangam v. Jairam Ganesh Gore, A.I.R. 1965 Bom. 177 : 1964(66) Bom.L.R. 645 at p. 672; A.I.R. 1965 Bom. 177, at p. 182 (F.B.), stand on a similar footing. In neither of these cases did the question arise whether the suit must relate to recovery of possession or whether it is sufficient that it relates to possession. Not only that such a question did not arise in these cases but the question canvassed before me by Mr. Gandhi was neither argued nor considered in these cases and therefore, casual observations in those cases cannot be construed as a decision on the question."
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - D K Deshmukh - Full Document

Mrs.Mina Srinivasan Krishnan vs Arun Bhaskar Adarkar on 16 June, 2014

The Honourable Supreme Court re-emphasized and reiterated the principle that even while claiming injunction the Plaintiff will have to show that he has a right to claim it. The Honourable Supreme Court then has referred to several decisions including a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dattatraya Krishna Jangam v/s Jairam Ganesh Gore reported in AIR 1965 Bombay 177. The Honourable Supreme Court held that before getting injunction, whether temporary or permanent, the Plaintiff has to establish a legal right for the said relief. While emphasizing that not everything is covered by Sections 28 and 41, the Honourable Supreme Court referred to the injunction suits and based on previous peaceful possession and subsequent threatened dispossession. They may stand on a different footing and would not be covered by Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 or for that matter Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. We need not go into this aspect in further details after having noted and considered Section 33 of the new Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 116 - Cited by 3 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Shrimati Tejbai Tejshi Dedhia And Ors. vs Central Bank Of India, A Body Corporate ... on 10 August, 2007

4. The impugned judgment is sought to be challenged on three grounds. Firstly that the impugned judgment is contrary to the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Dattatraya Krishna Jangam v. Jairam Ganesh Gore . Secondly, the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that the premises were in possession of the Court Receiver since 9th March, 1976 and therefore, the question of awarding damages thereafter could not arise. Thirdly, the Court could not have granted specific performance of the agreement dated 3rd May, 1973 as the existing premises cannot be segregated in terms of the agreement between the parties, and in the building in question there does not exist any premises of description which are required to be handed over to the respondent No. 1 under the said agreement. The main point on which the impugned judgment is sought to be challenged is the point of jurisdiction. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants that respondent No. 1 has sought possession of the premises in the capacity of a lessee and therefore, jurisdiction would vest in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, in terms of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, hereinafter called as "the P.S.C. Courts Act", and the civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 28 of the Rent Act. It is his further contention that the new building does not have any premises of the description of the one which was agreed upon under the agreement and therefore it is not possible to comply with the agreement in question. In any case, the possession of the new premises was handed over to the Court Receiver on 9th March, 1976 and since then there has been no attempt on the part of respondent No. 1 to get possession of the said premises and therefore, respondent No. 1 is not entitled for any damages and this aspect has been totally ignored by the trial Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 25 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

Dilip Kumar Devilal Jain vs National (India) Contractors And ... on 20 April, 2021

63. Learned counsel distinguished each and every judgment relied upon by the Dr. Chandrachud, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. He once again placed reliance on the judgment delivered by full bench of this Court in case of Dattatray Krishna Jangam (supra) and would submit that none of the three tests laid down by the full bench of this Court in the said judgment for conferring jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court exclusively has 50 ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2021 19:09:34 ::: Trupti /Bipin/Vai/kvm comapl-666-2021.doc been satisfied in the facts of this case. He submits that the appellant had not invoked the arbitration agreement in the capacity as a tenant. The relationship between the appellant and the respondent no.1 in the said proceedings are not governed by the provision of the Rent Act under the said Agreement. The appellant had neither applied for recovery of any rent nor had impleaded the respondents as the landlords. The appellant had filed the said petition as an allottee of the permanent alternate accommodation on ownership basis. The appellant had not prayed for recovery of possession of the shop in the new building or for transfer of the shop in the new building on tenancy basis.
Bombay High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Jayshree Murlidhar Dhuri And 3 Ors vs National (India) Contractors And ... on 20 April, 2021

63. Learned counsel distinguished each and every judgment relied upon by the Dr. Chandrachud, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. He once again placed reliance on the judgment delivered by full bench of this Court in case of Dattatray Krishna Jangam (supra) and would submit that none of the three tests laid down by the full bench of this Court in the said judgment for conferring jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court exclusively has 50 ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2021 19:09:14 ::: Trupti /Bipin/Vai/kvm comapl-666-2021.doc been satisfied in the facts of this case. He submits that the appellant had not invoked the arbitration agreement in the capacity as a tenant. The relationship between the appellant and the respondent no.1 in the said proceedings are not governed by the provision of the Rent Act under the said Agreement. The appellant had neither applied for recovery of any rent nor had impleaded the respondents as the landlords. The appellant had filed the said petition as an allottee of the permanent alternate accommodation on ownership basis. The appellant had not prayed for recovery of possession of the shop in the new building or for transfer of the shop in the new building on tenancy basis.
Bombay High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next