1990 (12) TMI 327 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court under section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1960.
2. Application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1.
3. Compliance with section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the order of interim relief.
4. Admissibility of interim relief granted in appeal if the trial court has not decided on the issue of jurisdiction.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Civil Court under section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1960
The case involved the removal of a Secretary from a Trust by the President, which was challenged in a Civil Suit. The defendants contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction due to a bar created by section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1960. The trial judge held that the Civil Court did have jurisdiction to hear the suit and consider the question of interim relief.

Issue 2: Application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1
The plaintiff had submitted an application for a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1, to restrain the defendants from obstructing him from working as the Secretary of the Trust. The trial judge disposed of both the application for temporary injunction and the application for deciding the issue of jurisdiction together in an elaborate judgment.

Issue 3: Compliance with section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the order of interim relief
The main contention raised was that the trial court acted with material irregularity by deciding on the interim relief before framing an issue regarding jurisdiction, as required by section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court was required to determine the question of jurisdiction before passing an order of interim relief, and failure to do so would render the interim relief decision without jurisdiction.

Issue 4: Admissibility of interim relief granted in appeal if the trial court has not decided on the issue of jurisdiction
The argument was made that the interim relief granted in appeal would also be without jurisdiction if the trial court had not conclusively decided on the issue of jurisdiction. The court emphasized the importance of determining the question of jurisdiction first before granting interim relief, as mandated by section 9-A.

The judgment highlighted the necessity of following the procedural requirements set out in the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly regarding the order of interim relief and the determination of jurisdiction issues. The court emphasized that the determination of jurisdiction should precede the decision on interim relief to ensure a fair and lawful process.