Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
AMARENDRA NATH ROY CHOWDHURY - Appellant
Versus
BIKASH CHANDRA GHOSE - Respondent
Matter 29 Of 1957
Decided On : MAY 22, 1957
The Calcutta City Civil Court Act, 1953, which was passed by the West Bengal Legislature and received the assent of the President, is not ultra vires and void. The provisions of the said Act, in so far as they purport to take away, curtail, restrict or alter the jurisdiction of the High Court, are within the competence of the State Legislature, and are therefore not ultra vires and void. The West Bengal Legislature, in constituting and organizing a City Civil Court, by passing the said Act, was not in fact reorganizing and reconstituting the High Court, which is beyond its competence. The Act deals with subjects which are in pith and substance within the competence of the West Bengal Legislature and as such are not ultra vires. The Act is not discriminatory, and does not take away beneficial advantages conferred on litigants of obtaining summary relief under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore does not offend against Article 14 of the Constitution. The appointment of respondent No. 1 is not bad, inasmuch as he was appointed even before the City Civil Court came into force and even before the Court was constituted under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who intended to file a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for a sum of Rs. 3,500 based upon a promissory note, in this High Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, challenged the validity of the City Civil Court Act, 1953, on the ground that it was ultra vires and void, and that the provisions of the said Act, in so far as they purported to take away, curtail, restrict or alter the jurisdiction of the High Court, were beyond the competence of the State Legislature, and were therefore ultra vires and void.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the City Civil Court Act, 1953, was not ultra vires and void, and that the provisions of the said Act, in so far as they purported to take away, curtail, restrict or alter the jurisdiction of the High Court, were within the competence of the State Legislature, and were therefore not ultra vires and void. The Court also held that the West Bengal Legislature, in constituting and organizing a City Civil Court, by passing the said Act, was not in fact reorganizing and reconstituting the High Court, which is beyond its competence. The Court further held that the Act deals with subjects which are in pith and substance within the competence of the West Bengal Legislature and as such are not ultra vires. The Court also held that the Act is not discriminatory, and does not take away beneficial advantages conferred on litigants of obtaining summary relief under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore does not offend against Article 14 of the Constitution. Finally, the Court held that the appointment of respondent No. 1 is not bad, inasmuch as he was appointed even before the City Civil Court came into force and even before the Court was constituted under the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the City Civil Court Act, 1953, is ultra vires and void. 2. Whether the provisions of the said Act, in so far as they purport to take away, curtail, restrict or alter the jurisdiction of the High Court, are beyond the competence of the State Legislature. 3. Whether the West Bengal Legislature, in constituting and organizing a City Civil Court, by passing the said Act, was in fact reorganizing and reconstituting the High Court. 4. Whether the Act deals with subjects which are in pith and substance within the competence of the West Bengal Legislature. 5. Whether the Act is discriminatory, and takes away beneficial advantages conferred on litigants of obtaining summary relief under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Whether the appointment of respondent No. 1 is bad.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The constitution and organization of High Courts has been made a Central subject in Entry 78 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, but only the 'constitution and organization' of the Supreme Court has been made a Central subject in Entry 77 of List I. 2. The 'jurisdiction and powers' of the High Court has not been mentioned in Entry 78 of List I, but Entry 95 gives the Parliament jurisdiction and power over all courts excepting the Supreme Court with respect to any of the matters in List I. 3. The jurisdiction and powers of all Courts in respect of administration of justice is still a state subject and this would include the High Court. 4. The State Legislature is competent to constitute and organize a City Civil Court and vest it with general jurisdiction, since that comes specifically and plainly within the scope of Entry No. 3 or Entry No. 3 read with Entry 65 in List II. 5. The taking away of some of the general jurisdiction and powers of the High Court and vesting the same in the City Civil Court would not necessarily mean, that the State Legislature was doing anything which could be said to be an infringement of Entry 78 in List I.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule. There was no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioner in this case challenges the validity of the City Civil Court Act, being West Bengal Act XXI of 1953, which was passed by the West Bengal Legislature and has received the assent of the President, such assent being published in the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary, dated the 1st September 1953. It is stated to be an Act to establish an additional Civil Court for the City of Calcutta. It is to be called the City Civil Court Act, 1953, and was to come into force on such date as the State Government might by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. For the purposes of this application the following provisions of the Act are important:---"3. (1 ). The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a Civil Court to be called the City Civil Court. (2 ). The City Civil Court shall be deemed to be a Court subordinate to and subject to the superintendence o the High Court within the meaning of the Letters Patent for the High Court and of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4. (1 ). There shall be appointed a Chief Judge of the City Civil Court and as many other Judges of that Court as the State Government thinks fit. (2 ). Each of the Judges of the City Civil Court may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on that Court by this Act or by any other law tor the time being in force. 5. (1 ). The local limits of the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court shall be the City of Calcutta. (2 ). Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) and (4), and of Section 9, the City Civil Court shall have jurisdiction and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try suits and proceedings of a civil nature, not exceeding rupees ten thousand in value. (3 ). The City Civil Court shall have jurisdiction and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try any proceedings under - (i ). the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and (ii ). Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in respect of succession certificates. (4 ). The City Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction to try suit and proceedings of the description specified in the First Schedule. (5 ). All suits and proceedings which are not triable by the City Civil Court shall continue to be triable by the High Court or the Small Cause Court or any other Court, tribunal or authority, as the case may be, as heretobefore. "
( 2 ) IT will be necessary to deal with the First Schedule in some detail later on. It is sufficient to mention here that under Item 5 of the First Schedule, suits and proceedings exceeding Rs, 5,000 in value relating to or arising out of, bills of exchange, hun-dis or other negotiable securities for money as well as letters of credit
or letters of advice are excluded from the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court; but suits and proceedings relating to or arising out of, cheques, promissory notes not exceeding Rs. 10,000 in value, which would otherwise have been tried in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta, will now be tried and determined by the City Civil Court. Tho petitioner states that he intends to file a suit under O. XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for a sum of Rs. 3,500 based upon a promissory note, in this High Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. He says that his plaint is ready but he has been' prevented from filing the suit because of the provisions of the City Civil Court) Act. The petitioner also challenges the appointment ofi the respt. Sri Bikash Chandra Ghose, Chief Judga of the City Civil Court, on the ground that his appointment is not in accordance with law. Before I proceed further, it will be convenient to refer to the several notifications whereby the City Civil Court was established and the Chief Judge appointed. As I have stated above, the Act was passed by the West Bengal Legislature in 1953, but it was to come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. Section 3 lays down that the S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
