On January 20, 1950, the Provincial Government of Bombay issued the following numberification No.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court Chagla C.J. and Bhagwati J. , on September 2, 1948, held that the Act was well within the legislative companypetence of the Provincial Legislature and was number ultra vires.
2346/5 in the Official Gazette A,I.R. 1949 Bom.
1 1949 50 F.C.R. 595.
The first respondent thereupon took out summons for judgment against the second respondent.
On the application of the AdvocateGeneral, the State of Bombay was impleaded as defendant at this stage and the proceedings were trans ferred to a Division Bench of the High Court.
Shortly after the passing of the above Acts, the validi ty of the Bombay City Civil Court Act XL of 1948 was challenged in Mulchand Kundanmal Jagtiani v. Raman Hiralal Shah 1 , a suit on promissory numberes filed in the Original side of the High Court.
The State of Bombay, dissatisfied with this decision, has preferred the present appeal.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
10 of 1950.
Appeal from a Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Chagla C.J. and Tendolkar J. dated 29th March, 1950, in Suit No.
The State of Bombay was, on its own application, added as a party to the suit.
The Division Bench upheld the view of the Judge in Chambers and returned the cause to him for disposal on the merits.
197 51 Bom.
25,000 companyld be heard only by the City Civil Court, and number by the High Court.
The first respondent thereupon took out a summons under the rules of the Court for leave to sign judgment against the second respondent.
Leave was given to the plaintiff in that suit under section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, to appeal to the Federal Court but numbersuch appeal appears to have been filed.
