https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310187 Section 31H of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act did not bar the proceedings because it applies only to matters pending in other courts on the date the 1986 amending Act commenced, and the earlier dispute had been filed later. The bar under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC also did not apply because a party that had challenged the jurisdiction of the earlier forum could not later rely on that proceeding to invoke the withdrawal bar, and a request for withdrawal with liberty to file fresh proceedings should not be defeated by granting only unconditional withdrawal. The challenge to the possession order was therefore rejected. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:09:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310187 Section 31H of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act did not bar the proceedings because it applies only to matters pending in other courts on the date the 1986 amending Act commenced, and the earlier dispute had been filed later. The bar under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC also did not apply because a party that had challenged the jurisdiction of the earlier forum could not later rely on that proceeding to invoke the withdrawal bar, and a request for withdrawal with liberty to file fresh proceedings should not be defeated by granting only unconditional withdrawal. The challenge to the possession order was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310187