https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288794 The High Court retained jurisdiction to try and determine a suit validly instituted before the Bombay High Court Letters Patent Amendment Act, 1948, because the later withdrawal of jurisdiction did not expressly or by necessary intendment divest pending matters already received by the court. The legislative scheme showed that where transfer of pending proceedings was intended, it was stated in clear terms. The words "receive, try and determine" were read conjunctively, so once the suit was properly received, jurisdiction to continue with it remained unless clearly removed by statute. en-us Wed, 03 Nov 1948 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jun 2020 09:50:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288794 The High Court retained jurisdiction to try and determine a suit validly instituted before the Bombay High Court Letters Patent Amendment Act, 1948, because the later withdrawal of jurisdiction did not expressly or by necessary intendment divest pending matters already received by the court. The legislative scheme showed that where transfer of pending proceedings was intended, it was stated in clear terms. The words "receive, try and determine" were read conjunctively, so once the suit was properly received, jurisdiction to continue with it remained unless clearly removed by statute. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Nov 1948 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288794