<?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>2025 (3) TMI 113 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766728</link>
    <description>Section 9 CPC preserves civil court jurisdiction unless expressly or by necessary implication excluded, but the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was treated as a complete code governing promoter-allottee rights, project registration, possession, payment obligations, complaint redressal, adjudication, appellate remedies, and enforcement. Section 79 was applied to bar civil court jurisdiction in matters the Authority, adjudicating officer, or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine, and the enforcement framework under Rule 26 of the West Bengal Rules, 2021 and Order XXI CPC reinforced that statutory scheme. On that basis, the Civil Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the ex parte ad interim injunction, which was therefore without authority and could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2025 07:12:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=803508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 113 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766728</link>
      <description>Section 9 CPC preserves civil court jurisdiction unless expressly or by necessary implication excluded, but the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was treated as a complete code governing promoter-allottee rights, project registration, possession, payment obligations, complaint redressal, adjudication, appellate remedies, and enforcement. Section 79 was applied to bar civil court jurisdiction in matters the Authority, adjudicating officer, or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine, and the enforcement framework under Rule 26 of the West Bengal Rules, 2021 and Order XXI CPC reinforced that statutory scheme. On that basis, the Civil Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the ex parte ad interim injunction, which was therefore without authority and could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766728</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>