TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Limits High Court Jurisdiction under Article 227</h1> <h3>Sameer Suresh Gupta Through Pa Holder Versus Rahul Kumar Agarwal</h3> The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, emphasizing the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227. The Court held that ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.2. High Court's exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.Summary:1. Jurisdiction of the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999:The respondent filed a suit for a declaration of tenancy and nullification of a leave and licence agreement. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant filed an application u/s 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, seeking vacant possession of the suit premises. The Competent Authority dismissed the respondent's application for framing a preliminary issue on jurisdiction, stating that the relationship between the parties and the purpose of the premises required evidence. The Competent Authority emphasized that all issues should be tried together to avoid protracted litigation.2. High Court's exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution:The respondent challenged the Competent Authority's order in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court, treating the petition under Article 227, held that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction as the premises were not exclusively for residential purposes, as required by Section 24 of the Act. The High Court concluded that the application should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.Supreme Court's Decision:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, emphasizing the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227. The Court referred to principles from previous judgments, highlighting that supervisory jurisdiction is to keep subordinate courts within their jurisdiction and not to correct mere errors of fact or law. The Supreme Court held that the Competent Authority's decision not to frame a preliminary issue was consistent with the objective of expeditious disposal of cases. The High Court's interference was deemed unjustified, and the Competent Authority was directed to dispose of the matter within one year without expressing any opinion on the merits of the application or the jurisdiction issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
