Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.38 seconds)
Savitribai And Anr. vs Vithal Hari Petakar on 30 April, 1981 cites

Ranchhodlal Maneklal Vyas vs Maneklal Pranjivandas Shah on 14 August, 1952

10. Reference was made to a decision of a Division Bench in Ranchhodlal Maneklal Vyas v. Maneklal Pranjivandas Shah, (1954) 56 Bom LR 962. The facts were that the landlord had filed the suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad. During the pendency of the suit, the Rent Act of 1947 came into force and thereafter the suit was decreed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. By virtue of Section 50 of the new Rent Act, it was necessary that the suit be transferred to a Court which would have jurisdiction to try the suit under the Rent Act. After referring to Section 28 and Section 50 of the Rent Act, the Division Bench observed that by reason of these provisions, the suit which was then pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, had to be transferred to the Civil Judge, Junior Division, which alone had the jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suit under Section 20 of the Rent Act. It was, therefore, held that the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, was without jurisdiction. It, however, does not appear that the matter was fully argued in that case. The points which are now canvassed before us have not at all been argued or considered by the Division Bench. The Division Bench did not consider the impact of the scheme of the Civil Courts Act, 1869, on the question of jurisdiction under Section 20(1)(b) of the Rent Act. The consideration of Section 28(1)(b) simpliciter is obviously incomplete. Further, in our view, this decision must be deemed to have been overruled by the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench. The Full Bench decision clearly lays down that while construing question of jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Rent Act, the provisions of the Bombay Civil Courts Act cannot be ignored.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1