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

1989 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 28

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
, J
Naraindas Mathuradas Narielwala (M/s.) v. M/s. Mukeshand Co.


Table of Content
1. plaintiffs appealed against returning the plaint due to jurisdictional issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. jurisdiction must be assessed based on current law and values. (Para 4)
3. the court prioritizes justice, ruling against returning the plaint. (Para 5)

1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against an order returning the plaint to the plaintiffs, which plaint will have to be ultimately presented to the same Court.

2. The plaintiffs filed this suit in the year 1972 as against the defendants for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove themselves, and things and articles belonging to them from the suit premises and for certain other consequential reliefs. At that time they had valued the suit for mandatory injunction at Rs. 300/- and for the arrears at Rs. 6,659/-.

3. However, sometime in the year 1987, the plaintiffs were advised to amend the plaint and seek relief of possession also and naturally they had to value the premises for the purpose of the said relief and they valued the said relief at Rs. 30,390/-. The amendment was allowed and carried out.

4. When the suit reached for hearing, the defendants thought that they could take up a contention that the B






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