Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.34 seconds)Section 9A in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Jagdish Shyamrao Thorve vs Shri Mohan Sitaram Dravid . on 17 August, 2015
9. The statement would, therefore, indicate that Section 9A was utilized
extensively to cause misuse rather than being in aid to the legal system.
By the excessive misuse of Section 9A, the litigation became cumbersome
and tedious and this contributed to increasing judicial backlog.
Paragraph 3 of the statement would indicate that judicial
pronouncements of the Honourable Supreme Court were taken into
account wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court concluded that as
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:53:37 :::
Varsha 13/21 52 s 215.1
Section 9A is practically mandatory in nature, an issue has to be cast
the moment the defendant raises an objection under Section 9A. No
discretion was left with the civil court to decide whether, the issue could
be framed or not and as such, the defendants were more prone to
misuse Section 9A. The matter was referred to the Larger Bench of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Jagdish Shyamrao Thorve vs. Mohan
Sitaram Dravid, SLP (C) No.22438/2015 by order dated 17.08.2015.
It was thus, concluded that Section 9A has created at least two judicial
bottlenecks which stymied the progress of litigation, resulted in delaying
the litigation and also resulted in multiplicity since several round of
litigations emerged from the orders passed on Section 9A by treating the
issue as a preliminary issue. It was in this backdrop that the Ordinance
of 2018 was introduced.
Section 3 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Institute Indo-Portuguese And Ors. vs Theotonio Borges And Ors. on 7 January, 1958
Section 9A was inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908), in its application to the State of Maharashtra, by the Code of
Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1970 (Mah. XXV of
1970), with a view to undo the effect of a judgment of High Court
delivered in the case of Institute Indo-Portuguese v. Borges [(1958) 60
Bom. L.R. 660].
Meher Singh vs Deepak Sawhny & Another on 22 September, 1999
3. However, today, section 9A has become a cumbersome and tedious
provision which has contributed to judicial backlog and given rise to
several complications. It has been held, in Meher Sing vs. Deepak
Sawhny [(1998) 3 Mh.LJ. 940], that where an issue of jurisdiction
involves a mixed question of fact and law, parties must be given an
opportunity to lead evidence.
Foreshore Co-Op.Hng.Society Ltd vs Praveen D Desai (D) Thr.Lrs. & Ors on 8 April, 2015
It has been held, in Foreshore Cooperative
Housing Society vs. Praveen D. Desai [(2015) 6 SCC 412] and Sandeep
Gopal Raheja vs . Sonali Nimisha Arora [(2016) SCC On Line Bom.
Mukund Ltd vs Mumbai International Airport & Ors on 15 February, 2011
9378], that section 9A is mandatory in nature, that where the
defendant raises an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, the court
has no discretion and is bound to frame an issue and decide it. It has
been held, in Mukund Ltd. v. Mumbai International Airport ((2011) 2
Mah. LJ 936), that even a defendant cannot, as a matter of litigation
strategy, decide not to press its jurisdictional objection at the hearing of
the interim application.