9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (4) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39 of Udyog Mandir Industrial Estate, fully protected under the Bombay -16, and was fully protected under the Bombay Rent Act notwithstanding the fact that it was inducted into the premises under an agreement of leave and licence dated July 23, 1972 for a period of 11 months, before the expire of which the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was amended by the Maharashtra Act XVIII of 1973 which came into force on February 1, 1973 Opponent No. 1 also prayed for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing its possession. 2. On August 29, 1973 the petitioner-Society, which is governed by its registered bye-laws and allotment regulations at Appendix III to the bye-laws which, inter alia, lays d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the defendants in the suit and also the petitioners- Society, which was also a party to the said application and which was added by making an application for amendment of the plaint. On that application an injunction was ordered by a Judge of the Small Causes Court on March 25, 1974 restraining the defendants in the suit and also the Society from proceeding with Arbitration Case No. ABN/A/1609 of 1973. 4. The said order of interim injunction is challenged in the above civil revision application on the ground that the Small Causes Court, even assuming that the suit was maintainable under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, had no jurisdiction to restrain the defendants from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding before the Officer on S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under the two special Acts, viz. Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, Section 91 and the Bombay Rent Act, Section 28, judicial amity and wisdom should have restrained the learned judge of the Small Causes Court from granting such an injunction. 6. Even assuming that he had powers to grant such an injunction, he could certainly not grant an injunction having regarded to the injunction of law contained in S. 41(b) which could guide a court in dealing with interim injunction applications. A Court cannot do even temporarily what it has been prohibited by law from doing permanently. 7. Mrs. Pandit could not and rightly did not try to argue that the Officer on Special Duty was a Court sub wording to the Small Causes Court. Section 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 46 of 1971 decided by Deshpande J. and myself and the fact that the Supreme Court leave petition being Civil Misc. Petition No. 395 of 1972 filed against the said judgment was summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court on march 27, 1972 and contended that even having regard to all the judgments relied on by Mrs. pandit, the present claim before the officer on Special Duty being a dispute raised by the Society against the member and a person claiming through the member for enforcing the aforesaid allotment regulations, was exclusively triable by the Officer on Special Duty. 10. I do not think that it is necessary for me, at this stage, to venture into this perplexingly never-ending question as it seems that Mr. Shastri's client has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
