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

1966 Supreme(Bom) 79

Y.V.CHANDRACHUD
Vishnu Dutt Vashisth and Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra Watch and Gramophone Company. – Respondent


JUDGMENT - (1) This is a revision application under Section 115 opf the Code of Civil Procedure by defendants 1 and 5 from the judgment of the City Civil Court, Bombay, holding on preliminary issues that it has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit andthat the subject matter of the suit is properly valued. I am concerned in his revision application with two questions only; one, whether by reason of the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), the City Civil Court has jurisidctiion to entertain and try the suit and two, whether the subject matter of the suit is properly valued. Questions arising out of the three other preliminary issues were not canvassed before me.

(2) Suit No. 6171 of 1964 has been filed in the City Civil Court by three plaintiffs who are respondents 1 to 3 to this revision application. The plaintiffs are in occupation of three shops which have a peculiar situation. A cinema theatre called Kohinoor Cinema, is situated on the Ranade Road, Dadar, Bombay, and the three shops of which the plaintiffs claim to be tenants are a part of those premises. The inner enclosure of t












































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