<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1929 (7) TMI 6 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291808</link>
    <description>The District Judge&#039;s distribution of civil business under Section 13 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 was an administrative allocation of work, not a limitation on the territorial jurisdiction conferred by the Local Government&#039;s notification. A Munsif posted at Arrah continued to have concurrent jurisdiction over the whole Sadr Sub-Division, and the fact that a particular class of suits was usually presented to another Munsif did not divest that jurisdiction. Section 13(3) also indicated that a decree or order is not invalid merely because the case arose outside the area ordinarily assigned for business distribution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 1929 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1929 (7) TMI 6 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291808</link>
      <description>The District Judge&#039;s distribution of civil business under Section 13 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 was an administrative allocation of work, not a limitation on the territorial jurisdiction conferred by the Local Government&#039;s notification. A Munsif posted at Arrah continued to have concurrent jurisdiction over the whole Sadr Sub-Division, and the fact that a particular class of suits was usually presented to another Munsif did not divest that jurisdiction. Section 13(3) also indicated that a decree or order is not invalid merely because the case arose outside the area ordinarily assigned for business distribution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 1929 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>