Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1917)32MLJ213
Wallis, C.J.1. We think that Sadasook (Gambir Chund v. Kannayya I.L.R. (1895) M. 96, and Srinivasa Charlu v. Balaji Rau I.L.R. (1896) M. 232, were rightly decided, and should in any case be allowed as they are decisions on a point of practice which have now stood for many years, and their reversal must seriously affect the settled practice of the court. In Calcutta, Sale, J. was clearly of the same opinion in Sasoon v. Hurrey Das Bhukut I.L.R. (1896) C. 455, and it has since been treated as settled law. Johan Smidt v. Ram Prasad I.L.R. (1911) C. 425. Dealing with the question in the reference, we think that in the cases to which we have been referred in Bombay and in this Court Behram v. Ardeshir I.L.R. (1903) B. 563, Bapuji v. Dastur : (1906)8BOMLR678 and V. Ramasamy Aiyar v. The Madras Times Limited (1915) 30 M.L.J. 207 attention was not sufficiently called to the corresponding changes in the County Courts Act from the first of which the provision as to new trials were taken. As is w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom112; (1960)62BOMLR985; ILR1961Bom219
ORDER1. This application is directed against the order passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in suit No. 2357/12520 of 1956 whereby the suit was dismissed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain it.2. The plaintiffs, who are the applicants before me, filed the suit against the defendants for a declaration that the property attached and mentioned in Ex. C to the plaint belonged to and was in the possession of the plaintiffs on the date of the attachment and that the said property was not liable to be attached in execution of the defendants' decree against Messrs, Raghunathrai Shrinivas, and claiming return of the said property to the plaintiffs or in the alternative its value i.e. Rs. 1100/- from the defendants or in the further alternative claiming the said sum as and by way of damages from the defendants. It appears that the defendants had obtained a decree in the Bombay City Civil Court against Messrs. Raghunathrai Shrinivas for a sura ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1993Bom1; 1992(2)BomCR638; (1992)94BOMLR170; 1993(1)MhLj347
1. Will this Court turn a Nelson's eye to a class of litigation that is unnecessarily throttling the functioning of the justice dispensation system which itself is groaning under unbearable arrears and virtually gasping for breath? For too long has it been the order of the day in and around the city of Bombay, particularly for persons in unjustified occupation of premises, to litigate virtually for decades together and use this time period as an umbrella for continuation of such illegal activities. Pendency of a litigation based on such claims invariably couched in a vanear of profoundness, arc used as the justification for such wrongful retention of the premises, thereby defeating the possessory rights of the owner. In the process, it is the Courts at whom an accusing finger is pointed as the institutions that have permitted this state of affairs to flourish. The modus operandi, invariably, is the institution of one or more litigations and the filing of appeals therefrom, or ihe start...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1965Cal446
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 ot the Code of Civil Procedure. The two petitioners are the Everest Cine Corporation (Private) Ltd. and its Director B. Chandak. These peti-tioners were the defendants in a suit before the Small Cause Court, Calcutta. The plaintiff in that suit was one Anil Banerjee who died during the pendency of the Rule in this Court. The Rule here was issued on the 12th February, 1962 and was directed against the judgment of the Presidency Small Cause Court under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act which set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge of the Small Cause Court.2. The facts of the case giving rise to this application may be stated briefly at the outset. The plaintiff, a Cine-Cameraman sued the two defendants for recovery of the sum of Rs. 2,000. The plaintiff's case is that on the 9th March, 1955 he was appointed as the Director of Photography for a film called 'Chalachal', under a w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(3)ALLMR230; 2001(3)BomCR76; (2001)2BOMLR533; 2001(2)MhLj477
P.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit. By consent of the parties heard forthwith.2. The petitioners herein have approached this Court to impugn the decision of the Principal Judge of the Small Causes Court. Bombay, dated 24th November, 2000 whereby on a notice taken out by the respondents, the suit was transferred from Court Room No. 4 to Court Room No. 2 on the ground of partiality of one of the Judges constituting the Appellate Bench of that Court. The notice was taken out on behalf of the respondents pleading bias on the part of one of the Judges constituting the Bench. In fact it seems earlier another notice had been taken out for transferring the Appeal from Court Room No. 3 to any other Court for the same reason, as the very Judge against whom allegations of bias are raised was also a part of the Bench presiding over Court Room No. 3. On behalf of the petitioners learned Counsel states that another Revision Application has been preferred against the said order which is pending. Be that as it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1960Mad58
(1) The two second appeals were referred to the Bench by Ramaswami J. and the civil revision petition was referred by Ramachandra Iyer J. in view of the conflict between the decisions inKishanlal Roopchand and Co. v. Indian Dominion, , and the Governor General in Council v. Ajit Bhai Jayantilal, . In the former case, Mack J. took the view that, in a case where a particular consignment of goods was carried over more than one railway, each railway administration should be treated as a separate entity and a separate juristic personality, and, though all the railways concerned were owned by the Government, a separate action notice under Sec. 77 of the Indian Railways Act should be given to each railway administration on the pain of the plaintiff failing to recover any compensation for loss of goods. In the other case Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. took the view that, in the case of loss of a consignment carried over two Government railways, notice under Sec. 77 given to one such railway which en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1959)2MLJ479
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. The two Second Appeals were referred to the Bench by Ramaswami, J., and the Civil Revision Petition was referred by Ramachandra Iyer J. in view of the conflict between the decisions in Kishanlal Roopchand and Co. v. Indian Dominion (1955) 1 M.L.J. 79 and The Governor-General in Council v. Ajit Bhai Jayantilal (1952) 2 M.L.J. 24. In the former case, Mack, J., took the view that in a case where a particular consignment of goods was carried over more than one railway, each railway administration should be treated as a separate entity and a separate juristic personality, and, though all the railways concerned were owned by the Government, a separate notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act should be given to each railway administration on the pain of the plaintiff failing to recover any compensation for loss of goods. In the other case, Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., took the view that, in the case of loss of a consignment carried over two Government railways, n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1969Bom73; (1968)70BOMLR394; ILR1968Bom855; 1968MhLJ835
ORDER 1. This is a revision application under the provision of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dated 30th April 1964 passed by a Judge of the Bombay Small Causes Court dismissing the petitioner's ejectment application field under the provisions of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act on the ground that the annual value of the premises at rack rent exceeds Rs. 3,000 and, therefore, the Bombay Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the said application. 2. The petitioners are the tenants of a godown on the ground floor of Botawala building at Narshi Natha Street, Bombay 9, at a rental of Rs. 188 per mensem. By an agreement dated 27th October 1960, the petitioners granted leave and licence to the respondents to use and occupy a portion of the said godown at a licence fee of Rs. 260 per mensem. The petitioners claim to have terminated the said leave and licence and have filed an application under Section 41 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(1)BomCR514; 2005(2)MhLj363
Devadhar J.P., J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 24-2-1995 wherein the preliminary issue of jurisdiction raised by the appellant defendant has been rejected by the learned Single Judge by holding that Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 is not applicable to the Suit No. 4000 of 1990 filed by the respondent plaintiff against the appellant defendant and that the suit is maintainable in this Court.2. For the sake of convenience the appellant is hereinafter referred to as the defendant and the respondent is hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff.3. The facts set out in the Suit No. 4000 of 1990 are that by an indenture of lease dated 12th August, 1971 the plaintiff took on lease from the Government of Maharashtra a plot of land situated at Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 for a period of 99 years on terms and conditions as more particularly set out therein. On the said plot of land, the plaintiff was to construct a 5 Star Deluxe Hotel called '...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2006Bom147; 2006(3)ALLMR45; 2006(1)MhLj853
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the original plaintiff Maruti Raghunath Kadam filed Suit No. 95/108 of 1993 in the Court of Small Causes under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 in respect of the suit premises contending therein that the original defendant Mangatram Anantrao Mane was his gratuitous licensee. On 17-1-2000 the said suit was decreed ex parte and direction for possession of the suit premises was issued in favour of the original plaintiff. Thereafter the original plaintiff filed Miscellaneous Notice No. 148 of 2000 for execution of the said decree which was made absolute and the plaintiff was allowed to execute the decree. When the plaintiff tried to execute the decree on 21-1-2001, the petitioners obstructed the execution. In view thereof, the original plaintiff took out Obstructionist Notice No. 18 of 2001 under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 9...
Tag this Judgment!