Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to further try and determine a suit that had been validly instituted before the commencement of the Bombay High Court Letters Patent Amendment Act, 1948.
Analysis: The suit had been properly filed in the High Court under the then existing election conferred by Section 21 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. Although later Bombay enactments withdrew the High Court's jurisdiction over certain classes of suits and provided for transfers in other contexts, the amending Act did not contain express words or necessary intendment showing an intention to divest the High Court of jurisdiction over suits already validly received. The legislative scheme elsewhere showed that when the Legislature intended transfer of pending matters it said so expressly. The words 'receive, try and determine' were read conjunctively, and once the suit had been received, the court's jurisdiction to try and determine it continued unless taken away by clear statutory language.
Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to further try and determine the suit, and the issue was answered in the affirmative.
Ratio Decidendi: A statute withdrawing jurisdiction will not be construed to divest a court of authority to continue with a suit already validly instituted unless that intention is expressed in clear words or arises by necessary intendment.