Skip to content


Sundardas Jagjivandas Vs. Mohandas Ticumdas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR9Bom454
AppellantSundardas Jagjivandas
RespondentMohandas Ticumdas
Excerpt:
jurisdiction - small cause court act, xi of 1865, sections 12 and 8--act iii of 1859--cantonment magistrate, jurisdiction of. - section 31(4) (since repealed) :[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu, jj] jurisdiction of high court - respondent, a government company, chartered appellants vessel to carry rock phosphate from togo to west coast india - dispute arose between parties - under agreement, respondent had chosen mumbai as port of delivery vessel carrying rock phosphate was delivered at port of bombay - application filed by respondent earlier before delhi high court for appointment of certain individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his demise held, high court of bombay, is not correct in rejecting arbitration petition filed by appellant on ground of lack of jurisdiction. .....the fact that the plaintiff is not carrying on business or resident within the limits of the military cantonment does not prevent his suing in the court of the cantonment magistrate. the only persons precluded from doing so are those mentioned in section 6, who are carrying on or have carried on trade or business within the military cantonment, and who were not registered as military bazarmen at the time the debt was contracted. again, unless the defendant is amenable to the articles of war as contemplated by section 4 of act iii of 1859, in which case he can only be sued in the court of the cantonment magistrate, he may also be sued in the court of the subordinate judge, provided the cause of action arose within his jurisdiction as to which this reference is silent.2. the small.....
Judgment:

Charles Sargent, C.J.

1. The fact that the plaintiff is not carrying on business or resident within the limits of the military cantonment does not prevent his suing in the Court of the Cantonment Magistrate. The only persons precluded from doing so are those mentioned in Section 6, who are carrying on or have carried on trade or business within the military cantonment, and who were not registered as military bazarmen at the time the debt was contracted. Again, unless the defendant is amenable to the articles of war as contemplated by Section 4 of Act III of 1859, in which case he can only be sued in the Court of the Cantonment Magistrate, he may also be sued in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, provided the cause of action arose within his jurisdiction as to which this reference is silent.

2. The Small Cause Court Act, XI of 1865, Section 12*, saves the jurisdiction of this Cantonment Magistrate, but does not take away the jurisdiction conferred by Section 8 on the Small Cause Court.

3. The Subordinate Judge must, therefore, be guided by these remarks, and act accordingly.

* Section 121-Wherever a Court of Small Causes is constituted under this Act, no suit cognizable by such Court shall be heard or determined in any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such Court of Small Causes: Provided that nothing in this Act shall be held to take away the jurisdiction which a Magistrate, or a person exercising the powers of a Magistrate, or an Assistant or Deputy Magistrate can now exercise in regard to debts or other claims of a civil nature, or the jurisdiction which can be exercised by * * * * * or by Cantonment Joint-Magistrates invested with civil jurisdiction under Act III of 1859. * * *


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //