.....37 of the Civil Procedure Code. Where the trial Judge who tried the case at Gauhati, had jurisdiction to try the case of Tezpur and vice versa, the fact that he did not try the case at Tezpur but at Gauhati would not make the order or judgment invalid for that reason [AIR 1952 Assam 88]. The Supreme Court held in Triogi Nath v. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. [AIR 1968 SC 205] that the labour Courts constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act have no comparison with the courts constituted under this Act. The Allahabad High Court held in Nand Kishore v. Mool Chandra [AIR 1966 All 613], that S. 31 of the Arbitration Act does not prevent a District judge from exercising his power of transfer under S. 13. or under the provisions of C.P.C. 14. Place of sitting of Courts. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix or alter the place or places, which any Civil Court under this Act is to be held. (2) All places at which any such courts are now held shall be deemed to have been fixed under this section. COMMENTS It is not the actual sitting on a particular day that determines the situation of the Court but the situation is determined by the.....
List Judgments citing this section