C P BANNERJEE Vs. B S IRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this matter I had delivered a judgment on October 6, 1948, but, after I did so, my attention was drawn to the fact that the Bombay Legislature had simultaneously with the enactment of Bombay Act XLIV of 1948 also enacted Bombay Act XLI of 1948 called the Bombay High Court Letters Patent Amendment Act, 1948. This necessitated a further "argument and in the result I quashed the judgment which I had dictated on October 6, 1948, and put down the matter for further argument. The matter has been thereafter fully argued before me by Mr. Palkhiwalla appearing for the plaintiff, Mr. M. M. Desai appearing for the defendant and by Mr. B. J. Divan whom I appointed to argue the matter before me per amicus curiae.

(2.) THE question that falls to be determined by me in this matter is whether this Court has jurisdiction to further try and determine the suit, having entertained it at a time when according to the law as it then stood it had jurisdiction to entertain the same.

(3.) ALL these Acts, Bombay Act XL of 1948, Bombay Act XLI of 1948 and Bombay Act XLIV of 1948 along with others came into operation some time in August 1948 and thus arose the question as to whether, even though this Court rightly received or entertained this suit which was for an amount exceeding Rs. 1,000 at the date when the same was instituted, it had further jurisdiction to try and determine the same.