Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.35 seconds)Kedar Nath Jai Prakash vs Chhajju Mal Sumerchand on 21 November, 1961
The learned Judge of the City Civil Court had also relied on a similar decision given by him in Shamrao Pagaji Kapagate v. Umctshankar Ganpatlal Asati (1970) Bhandara Civil Suit No. 15-B of 1958, decided by H. Suresh Judge, City Civii Court, at Bombay, on February 27, 1970 where he preferred to follow the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kedar Nath v. Chhajju Mal .
Rameswar Mahton And Ors. vs Dilu Mahton And Ors. on 23 January, 1894
and found that the learned Judge of the City Civil Court had not given any reasons why he preferred the Allahabad decision to the decision of this Court. Justice Vaidya has also referred to the decision in Rameswar Mahton v. Dilu Mahton (1894) I.L.R. 21 Cal. 550.
Matrumal vs Madanlal Gourishankar on 29 March, 1957
56, Chandravathi v. Payapattillath , and Matrumal v. Madanlal , which took the same view as was taken by the learned Chief Justice in Rustomjee Sorabji's case.
Ishwarappa Malleshappa Manvi vs Dhanji Bhanji Gujjar on 23 July, 1931
As pointed out by Patkar J. in Ishwarappa v. Dhanji [1932] A.I.R. Bom. 111 : s.c. 34 Bom.
Ambadas Harirao Karante vs Vishnu Govind Boramanikar And Ors. on 2 July, 1926
204 a Full Bench of the Patna High Court, accepting the view of this Court in Ambadas v. Vishnu has held that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the civil Court is ordinarily governed by the value stated by the plaintiff in his plaint and such jurisdiction is not ousted by the Court ultimately finding that a decree for a sura exceeding the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court should be given to the plaintiff. Thus the competence of the Court to which the decree has been, transferred for execution will have to be determined with reference to the valuation of the suit in which the decree was passed and not with reference to amount for which the decree sought to be executed has been passed. If this is the principle then merely because the jurisdiction of the City Court in respect of matters instituted before it is restricted to Rs. 25,000 its competency to entertain a proceeding as a transferee Court for the purpose of execution of the decree in excess of Rs. 25,000 will not be affected if the claim in the suit will not exceed Rs. 25,000. It is not disputed that the valuation of the claim in the suit in which the decree which is transferred was passed was less than Rs. 25,000. It must, therefore, be held that the learned Judge was in error in declining to proceed with the execution proceeding. In view of the fact that the earlier decisions of this Court are binding on me, I do not consider it necessary to deal with the Allahabad view on which the learned Judge has founded his decision.
Section 4 in The Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Shri Sidheshwar Pandit vs Shri Harihar Pandit on 20 July, 1887
9. Mr. Nain, however, vehemently contended that the earlier decisions of this Court in Shri Sidheshwar Pandit and Rustomjee Sorabji's case did not take into account the wording of Section 3 of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948. According to the learned counsel the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court is restricted by Section 3 of the Act "to receive, try and dispose of all suits and other proceedings of a civil nature not exceeding ten thousand rupees in value and arising within the Greater Bombay" except the kind of suits or proceedings which are enumerated in Clauses (a) to (d). Admittedly, as a result of the exercise of the power under Section 4 of the Act by the State Government, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court has been extended to suits of the value not exceeding Rs. 25,000. What is therefore contended is that the jurisdiction of the city Civil Court is restricted to suits or other proceedings of a civil nature not exceeding Rs. 25,000 and since the execution proceedings were proceedings of a civil nature, the subject-matter of which was valued at more than Rs. 25,000 by the very terms of the section of the Act, the execution proceedings could not be entertained by the City Civil Court. It is no doubt true that Section 3 of the Act sets out the pecuniary jurisdiction of the. City Civil Court. It is however well established that it is the valuation of the claim in the plaint which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and if a suit is properly filed in a Court of competent jurisdiction, there is no bar to prevent the Court from passing in that suit a decree for an amount in excess of its pecuniary jurisdiction,.
Section 39 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Rustomjee Sorabji Kapadia vs Mahadev Chintaman Wadekar on 14 February, 1940
56, Chandravathi v. Payapattillath , and Matrumal v. Madanlal , which took the same view as was taken by the learned Chief Justice in Rustomjee Sorabji's case.