Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)
Ahmed Khan vs Mohamad Khasim Sab on 14 July, 1975 cites

H.V. Rajan vs C.N. Gopal And Ors. on 9 August, 1974

6. Mr. Byra Reddy relied on the decision in H. V. Rajan v. C. N. Gopal, 1960 Mys L.J 106 = (AIR 1961 Mys 29) wherein it has been held that under Section 8 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1951 no tenant can be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or law to the contrary, excepting in accordance with the provisions of that Section or Section 7 (3) of the same Act and that a landlord who seeks to evict a tenant in possession, will have to apply to the court as defined in Section 2 (2) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs Rajabhai Abdul Rehman & Ors on 18 March, 1970

8. It is contended on the other hand, by Mr. Gopal, that since the appellant did not take the plea with regard to lack of jurisdiction in the original suit it is not open to him to urge the same in the execution proceeding and that it is beyond the scope of the executing Court to investigate and determine the question of jurisdiction, of the Court which passed the decree. He has relied on the decision in Vasudeva. Danjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Redman . In that case a decree for ejectment of a lessee was passed by the Court of Small Causes exercising the power vested in it by the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act (57 of 1947). Under the said Act the Court exercising power under that Act has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession of land used for agricultural purposes. Also, in ascertaining whether the land demised is used for agricultural purposes the crucial date is the date on which the right conferred by the Act is sought to be exercised. The trial Court dismissed the suit on merits. The decree was reversed by the first appellate Court and that decree was confirmed by the High Court. No objection was raised before the Court of Small Causes that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit nor was it raised in the first appeal or before the High Court. The objection was raised for the first time when the decree was sought to be executed. The Court executing the decree rejected the contention. The Appeal against that order was also unsuccessful. But in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court reversed the order of the Court of Small Causes and ordered that the petition for execution be dismissed. The High Court was of the view that the land leased was on the date of the lease used for agricultural purposes and that it so appeared on an investigation of the terms of the lease and other relevant evidence. The scope of an enquiry by the Court executing the decree as to the question of jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree was stated as follows-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 283 - J C Shah - Full Document

Hira Lal Patni vs Kali Nath on 23 December, 1955

4. The principle laid down by the Privy Council in (1886) 13 Ind App 134 - that consent or waiver can cure defect of jurisdiction but cannot cure inherent lac of jurisdiction was proved. That was a case where objection was taken during the execution proceedings relating to territorial jurisdiction. It was held that the objection as to local jurisdiction of a court does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of a court to try a case, that competence of a court to try a case goes to the very root of the jurisdiction, and where it is lacking it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. It was held that the conduct of the defendant estopped him from challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain the suit and to make a reference to the aribitrator and that he was equally estopped from challenging the authority of the arbitrator to render the award.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 100 - Full Document
1   2 Next