Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment

Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v. Ram Chandra Bhikaji Joshi, AIR 1979

Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v. Ram Chandra Bhikaji Joshi, AIR 1979 Case study||Case Summary


INTRODUCTION

THIS CASE IS MAINLY CONCERNED WITH THE JURISDICTION OF A CIVIL COURT IN A SUIT IN WHICH AN INCIDENTAL OR SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE ARISES WHICH HAS TO BE DEALT BY ANOTHER LEGISLATION.

FACTS

  • The plaintiff (appellant), G.S.Shinde, filed a suit before the Trial Court for the specific performance of a contract. 
  • The contract was executed by parties for the sale of agricultural land to the plaintiff by the defendant(R.C.B.Joshi) for a consideration of Rs42000 out of which Rs 5000 was paid as earnest money. Later, a sum of Rs5000 was also paid and the duration for the performance of the contract was extended by 6 months.
  • Later the defendant denied to sell the land, therefore this suit had been raised.
Defendant Contention
  • The disputed land was covered by Bombay Tenancy Act, 1948 and it has to be sold only to an agriculturist within the meaning of S.63 of the said Act.
  • As the agreement was contrary to the Tenancy Act it can not be enforced.
Plaintiff Contention
  • He produced a certificate issued by Mamlatdar certifying him as an agriculturist therefore the bar imposed by S.63 would not operate.
CASE HISTORY AND DECISIONS

Trial Court- 
  • The certificate issued by Mamlatdar had no evidentiary value.
  • TC itself recorded that Plaintiff was not an agriculturist.
  • On the question of jurisdiction, it opined that being an incidental issue in a suit over which the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try, it will also have jurisdiction to decide the incidental issue.
  • Case dismissed.
High Court-
  • Agreed with TC.
  • Dismissed appeal

ISSUE BEFORE SC

  1. Whether the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to decide the status of Plaintiff as an agriculturist.

SUPREME COURT'S DECISION

  • Appeal allowed.
  • TC and HC were in error in exercising their jurisdiction which had not been vested in them.
  • Mamlatdar alone has the exclusive jurisdiction under the Tenancy Act to decide any of the questions arising under S.70 and S.70(a).
Ratio Decidendi- 
    1. The exclusion of  the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not to be readily inferred, but such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied { Secretary of State v. Mask, 1940}
    2. S.85, Tenancy Act exclusively ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to settle, decide, or deal with any question which is by or under the Tenancy Act required to be settled, decided, or dealt with by the competent authority.
    3. S.85(a) originated from the observation of the Court in D.K.Mali v. D.P.Adgale (1954) requires the Civil Court to stay the suit and refer the issue to competent authority under the Tenancy Act for determination.
    4. The finding of the competent authority under the Tenancy Act is binding on the Civil Court.
    5. By such camouflage of treating issues arising in a suit as substantial or incidental. Civil Court can not arrogate to itself jurisdiction which is statutorily ousted.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more