Back
G.S.GODBOLE
Hussainali Sharif Punjwani – Appellant
Versus
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay – Respondent
1. Since a common question of law has arisen in all these Civil Revision Applications and the Writ Petition, all these matters were clubbed together and by consent of the respective Advocates appearing for the parties, the question of law arising in all these matters is being decided by this common Judgment. In all these matters the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (hereinafter referred to as “the BPT” for short) is the Respondent and all Civil Revision Applications and Writ Petition arise out of the original Suits filed by the said Respondent.
QUESTION OF LAW :
2. The question of law involved in all these matters is whether the Decrees passed by the Court of Small Causes in favour of the Respondent-Port Trust are nullities, having been passed by the Court suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction on account of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the P.P. Act, 1971).
FACTS IN CRA NO. 193/2011 :
3. The Respondent–BPT filed L.E.& C. Suit No. 427/594/1979 under the provisions of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “P. S. C. C. Act, 1882” for short). The
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "questioned" associated with any of the cases, nor are there references to subsequent judicial treatment that negate their validity. Therefore, based solely on the provided information, there is no evidence to categorize any of these cases as bad law.
[Followed / Valid Precedents]
All cases appear to be presented as established legal principles without indication of subsequent negative treatment.
For example, case Fazlehussein Haiderbhoy Buxamusa VS Yusufally Adamji - 1950 0 Supreme(Bom) 59 discusses the jurisdiction of courts over foreign charities, and there is no indication it has been overruled or criticized.
Similarly, case SANKAR KUMAR BHATTAR VS TEHSILDAR-CUM-REVENUE OFFICER - 1975 0 Supreme(Ori) 93 on the amendment of statutes conferring jurisdiction appears to be a valid statement of law, with no indication of subsequent treatment.
[Unchanged / Unreversed]
Cases MAHAVIR SINGH VS GAURI SHANKAR - 1963 0 Supreme(All) 55, United Bank Of India, Calcutta VS Abhijit Tea Company Private LTD. - 2000 6 Supreme 183, and Attiqur Rehman VS Municipal Corporation Of Delhi - 1996 2 Supreme 463 deal with specific legal points (e.g., sale set-aside, application of the Recovery of Debts Act, and jurisdiction of Magistrates) and are presented without any indication that their holdings have been questioned or overruled.
The language used in the descriptions suggests these are still considered valid legal principles.
All cases are described in a manner that suggests they are current and valid, but without references to subsequent case law or judicial treatment, their current standing cannot be definitively confirmed.
Since there are no explicit mentions of overruling or negative treatment, these cases are best considered as potentially still good law unless further information is available elsewhere.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
