Back
2005(1) JLJ 358
(SUPREME COURT)
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.I., Shivaraj V. Patil, K.G. Balakrishnan,
B.N. Srikrishna and G.P. Mathur, JJ.
State of M.P. v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. and others
(with Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra and others)
Civil Appeals No. 1222, 1223 and 1224 of 1985(with Civil Appeal No. 2452 of 1992): against the order of M.P. High Court, passed in Company Appeals No.4, 5 and 7 of 1983, reported in 1985 JLJ 140;
Decided on 11.1.2005.
(2) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981 (M.P.) -- S. 1 -- Adhiniyam has been validly enacted by State Legislature.
The correctness of the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh striking down the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981 (for short ‘the Adhiniyam‘) abolishing Letters Patent appeals as invalid are under challenge in these matters. [Para 1
Held : Entry 77 in List I deals with the constitution, organization, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court. Entry 78 relates to only constitution and organization of the High Courts and not with the jurisdiction and powers of the High Courts unlike in Entry 77 dealing with the jurisdiction and powers of Supreme Court in addition to constitution and organization. Jurisdiction and powers of High Court are dealt with as a separate topic under Entry 11A of List III, which was in Entry 3 of List II prior to 42nd Constitution Amendment Act. The general jurisdiction of the High Courts falls in ‘administration of justice‘, i.e., under Entry 11A in the Concurrent List. Entry 95 of the Union List, Entry 65 of the State List and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List refer to special jurisdictions of the Courts relating to the matters contained in the respective lists. Entry 95 deals with the power of Parliament to confer jurisdiction and powers of all the Courts except the Supreme Court with respect to any of the matters in List I. Similarly, Entry 65 of List II deals with the power of State Legislature to confer jurisdiction and powers on all the Courts except the Supreme Court with respect to the matters contained in the said list. Entry 46 in the Concurrent List refers to the power and jurisdiction of all the Courts except the Supreme Court with respect to all the matters contained in the Concurrent List. It may be noted here that one of the items in the Concurrent List is Civil Procedure Code under Entry 13.
In our view, the State Legislature has power to confer general jurisdiction on all the Courts except the Supreme Court under Entry 11A in the Concurrent List falling within the meaning of ‘administration of justice‘. [Paras 37 & 38
Civil Appeals No. 1222-1224 of 1985 are allowed, the impugned judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is set aside and the writ petitions stand dismissed. 1985 JLJ 140 (FE) reversed. 1951 SCR 51, (1994) 6 SCC 731, (1968) 2 SCR 709, (1986) 3 SCC 682, AIR 1952 SC 369, AIR 1982 SC 710, AIR 1981 SC 1127, AIR 1947 PC 60, (2004) 2 SCC 553 and (2004) 2 SCC 489 relied on. 99(2002) DLT 840, AIR 1949 Born. 197, AIR 1957 Cal. 534, AIR 1972 Cal. 160, AIR 1959 Mad. 261, AIR 1961 Kerala 96, AIR 1965 Mys. 76, AIR 1980 P&H 1 and AIR 1959 AP 3 approved. [Para 94
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && lkroha vuqlwph] lwph 1 izfof"V 77] 78] 79 rFkk 95] lwph 2 izfof"V 65] lwph 3 izfof"V 11d] 13 rFkk 46 && mPp U;k;ky; dks ‘kfDr;k¡ vkSj vf/kdkfjrk iznku dh tkuk vFkok okil yh tkuk && ,sls fo"k; ij jkT; fo/kku&eaMy }kjk vf/kfu;fefr vf/kfu;fer dh tk ldrh gSA ¼2½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼ysVlZ isVsaV vihYl lekfIr½ vf/kfu;e] 1981 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 1 && vf/kfu;e jkT; fo/kku eaMy }kjk fof/kekU;r% vf/kfu;fer fd;k x;k gSA bu ekeys eas] fof/kekU; gksus ds dkj.k ysVlZ isVsaV vihy lekIr djus ds fy, e/; izns‘k mPp U;k;ky; ¼ysVlZ isVsaV vihYl lekfIr½ vf/kfu;e] 1981 ¼la{ksi esa *vf/kfu;e*½ dsa mica/k vfHk[kafMr djus ds e/; izns‘k mPp U;k;ky; dh iw.kZ U;k;kihB ds fofu‘p; dh ‘kq)rk vk{ksik/khu gSA ¿ iSjk 1À vfHkfu/kkZfjr % lwph 1 dh izfof"V 77 mPpre U;k;ky; ds xBu] laxBu] vf/kdkfjrk vkSj ‘kfDr;ksa ds ckjs esa gSA izfof"V 77 ls fHké] tks xBu vkSj laxBu ds vfrfjDr mPpre U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk vkSj ‘kfDr;ksa ds ckjs esa gS] izfof"V 78 mPp U;k;ky;ksa ds xBu vkSj laxBu ls gh lacaf/kr gS] mPp U;k;ky;ksa dh vf/kdkfjrk vkSj ‘kfDr;ksa ls ughaA mPp U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk vkSj ‘kfDr;ksa dk i`Fkd~ fo"k; dh Hkk¡fr] tks 42osa lafo/kku la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e ls iwoZ lwph 2 dh izfof"V 3 lwph 3 dh izfof"V 11d esa foospu fd;k x;k gSA mPp U;k;ky;ksa dh lk/kkj.k vf/kdkfjrk *U;k; iz‘kklu* eas vkrk gS] vFkkZr] leorhZ lwph esa izfof"V 11d ds v/khu A la?k lwph dh izfof"V 95] jkT; lwph dh izfof"V 65 rFkk leorhZ lwph dh izfof"V 46 esa viuh&viuh lwph esa varfoZ"V fo"k;ksa ds laca/k esa U;k;ky;ksa dh fo‘ks"k vf/kdkfjrk dk funsZ‘k gSA izfof"V 95 mPpre U;k;ky; esa fHké lHkh U;k;ky;ksa dh lwph 1 ds fo"k;ksa esa ls fdlh fo"k; ds laca/k eas vf/kdkfjrk vkSj ‘kfDr;k¡ iznÙk djus dh laln~ dh ‘kfDr ds ckjs esa gSA blh izdkj] lwph 2 dh izfof"V 65 mPpre U;k;ky; ls fHké lHkh U;k;ky;ksa dks mDr lwph dsa fo"k;ksa esa ls fdlh fo"k; ds laca/k esa v/fkdkfjrk vksj ‘kfDr;k¡ iznÙk djus dh jkT; fo/kku eaMy dh ‘kfDr ds ckjs esa gSA leorhZ lwph dh izfof"V 46 esa mPpre U;k;ky; ls fHké lHkh U;k;ky;ksa dh leorhZ lwph ds fo"k;ksa esa ls fdlh fo"k; ds laca/k esa vf/kdkfjrk vkSj ‘kfDr;ksa dk funsZ‘k gSA tgk¡ /;ku fn;k tk, fd leorhZ lwph dh enksa esa ls ,d] izfof"V 13 ds v/khu flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk gSA gekjh jk; esa] jkT; fo/kku eaMy dks *U;k; iz‘kklu* ds vFkkZarxZr] leorhZ lwph dh izfof"V 11d ds v/khu mPpre U;k;ky; ls fHké lHkh U;k;ky;ksa dks lk/kkj.k vf/kdkfjrk iznÙk djus dh ‘kfDr gSA ¿ iSjk 37 ,oa 38À flfoy vihy Ø- 1222&1224 lu~ 1985 eatwj dh tkrh gS] e/; izns‘k mPp U;k;ky; dh iw.kZ U;k;ihB dk vkf{kIr fu.kZ; vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk fjV ;kfpdk,¡ [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA 1985 ts ,y ts 140 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ myVk x;kA 1951 ,l lh vkj 51] ¼1994½ 6 ,l lh lh 731] ¼1968½ 2 ,l lh vkj 709] ¼1986½ 3 ,l lh lh 682] , vkb vkj 1952 ,l lh 369] , vkb vkj 1982 ,l lh 710] , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 1127] , vkb vkj 1947 ih lh 60] ¼2004½ 2 ,l lh lh 553 rFkk ¼2004½ 2 ,l lh lh 489 voyafcrA 99 ¼2002½ Mh ,y Vh 840] , vkb vkj 1949 cacbZ 197] , vkb vkj 1957 dy- 534] , vkb vkj 1972 dy- 160] , vkb vkj 1959 enzkl 261] , vkb vkj 1961 dsjy 96] , vkb vkj 1965 eSlwj 76] , vkb vkj 1980 ia ,aM g- 1 rFkk , vkb vkj 1959 vk-iz- 3 vuqeksfnrA ¿ iSjk 94À
Patil, J. -
1. The Constitutional validity of the Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Amendment) Act, 1986 (Maharashtra Act No. XV of 1987) (for short the 1987 Act), which received assent of the President on 4.5.1987, Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986 (Maharashtra Act XVII of 1986) (for short 'the 1986 Act'), which received the assent of the President on 28.2.1986, and the correctness of the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh striking down the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') abolishing Letters Patent appeals as invalid are under challenge in these matters.
Civil Appeal No. 2452/1992
2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Maharashtra made in writ petition No. 738 of 1992. The appellant herein filed writ petition by way of public interest litigation questioning the Constitutional validity of the 1987 Act. In addition to challenging the Constitutional validity of the aforementioned Act, he also sought for declaration that the Notification dated 20th August, 1991 issued by the State of Maharashtra as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after dealing with the rival contentions, dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment upholding the validity of the 1987 Act and deferring the implementation of the Notification dated 20.8.1991 till 2.10.1992. After the impugned judgment was delivered, the appellant orally sought for leave to appeal to Supreme Court under Article 132(1) read with Article 134-A of the Constitution of India. This appeal is by certificate granted by the High Court under Article 132(1) read with Article 134 of the Constitution of India.
3. Although the 1987 Act received the presidential assent on 4.5.1987, it was not implemented for over four years between 4.5.1987 to 20.8.1991 for want of infrastructure and other requirements at the Bombay City Civil Court. The High Court of Bombay had indicated to the Government that before the said Act could be brought into force, the City Civil Court should be adequately equipped to handle the transfer of jurisdiction. The High Court in 1988 had categorically stipulated that minimum 110 Judges would be necessary as a pre-condition for the transfer of jurisdiction to the City Civil Court for the implementation of the said Act. The High Court had indicated the requirements such as requisite number of court halls, judges, chambers, residences, books and staff etc. It appears there were several representations both for and against the implementation of the Act. On 20.8.1991, State of Maharashtra issued the notification to bring the 1987 Act into force with effect from 1.5.1992. Contending that there was no necessary infrastructure and other requirements were not satisfied to take care of the transfer of jurisdiction to deal with the cases and that there was no legislative competence for passing such Act by the legislature of State of Maharashtra, writ petition No. 738 of 1992 was filed, as already indicated above, challenging the constitutional validity of the 1987 Act as well as the aforementioned notification of 20.8.1991 bringing the 1987 Act into force with effect from 1.5.1992. On 15.4.1992, rule was issued and permission was given for intervention among others to the Bombay Bar Association, Bombay Incorporated Law Society, the Indian Merchants' Chamber and the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court Bar Association. After hearing the arguments at considerable length and dealing with the rival contentions, the Division Bench of the High Court passed the impugned judgment on 29.4.1992 in terms already mentioned in the beginning of this judgment.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2592 of 1992 and 2530 of
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
