SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(Bom) 34

M.C.CHAGLA, S.R.TANDOLKAR
Narottamdas Jethabhai – Appellant
Versus
Aloysious Pinto Phillips – Respondent


Judgment

Chagla, C.J.

1. Four issues relating to jurisdiction have been raised on the summons for judgment taken out by the plaintiff, and they have now come before us for decision.

2. The suit in which these issues arise was filed for recovering a sum of Rs. 11,704-5-4, and the main question that we have to consider is whether in view of the notification issued by the Government on 20th January 1950, this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit.

3. In order to understand and appreciate the contentions raised before us it is necessary to look at the Bombay City Civil Court Act (Bom. Act XL [40] of 1948). That Act was passed by the Bombay Legislature in order to establish an additional Civil Court for Greater Bombay, Section 3 of that Act deals with the constitution of the new Court and provides that:

"The Provincial Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, establish for the Greater Bombay a Court, to be called the Bombay City Civil Court. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, such Court shall have jurisdiction 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 Greate



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top