Sh Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji vs State of Gujarat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(SC) 674

DIPAK MISRA, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Sh Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? What is the maintainability framework for a Letters Patent Appeal in relation to orders of civil courts versus tribunals under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution? Question 2? What is the correct jurisdictional locus for challenging civil court orders: Article 226 original jurisdiction vs Article 227 supervisory/revisional jurisdiction? Question 3? What are the criteria for impleading tribunals/authorities as necessary parties in writ proceedings challenging tribunal or civil court orders?

Key Points: - (!) (!) (!) - (!) - (!) (!) - (!) (!) (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

What is the maintainability framework for a Letters Patent Appeal in relation to orders of civil courts versus tribunals under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?

Question 2?

What is the correct jurisdictional locus for challenging civil court orders: Article 226 original jurisdiction vs Article 227 supervisory/revisional jurisdiction?

Question 3?

What are the criteria for impleading tribunals/authorities as necessary parties in writ proceedings challenging tribunal or civil court orders?

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

In this batch of appeals, by special leave, the appellants call in question the legal substantiality of the judgment and order dated 26.12.2013 passed by the Special Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in a bunch of Letters Patent Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. As the factual matrix would unveil, the Division Bench that referred the matter to a larger Bench, noticed conflict in Revaben Wd/o. Ambalal Motibhai and others v. Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel and others, 2013 (1) GLH 440 and Dilavarsinhsinh Khodubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and others, 1995 (1) GLH 58 and at that juncture framed two questions. The Special Bench adverted to the facts necessitating the reference in detail and took note of the preliminary objections of the learned counsel for the State as regards the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal on many a score and thereafter thought it appropriate to frame the questions afresh and accordingly it formulated questions.

3. At the outset, we may state that though eight questions have been drawn up by the special Bench yet we are disposed to think that they can really be put into three basic compartments, name

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

[The vast majority of cases reference "Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat" (various spellings and citations: (2015) 9 SCC 1, AIR 2015 SC 3623, 2015 (7) Scale 495, etc.) positively. This is the dominant precedent in the list, treated as good law and authoritative on issues like maintainability of writ petitions under Articles 226/227, Letters Patent Appeals (LPA), jurisdiction over tribunal/civil court orders, and supervisory powers. Examples:]

Balaji Ramnath Naik VS Shantadurga Kumbharjuvenkarin Devasthan - 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1620: "The learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance on the Judgment dated 6th July, 2015... in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji" – heavy reliance indicates followed.

SUPERINTENDENT, RAJMATA VIJAY RAJE SCINDIA REGIONAL AGRICULTURE RESEARCH STATION, UJJAIN VS HUSSAINI BEE W/O KALLUJI - 2015 0 Supreme(MP) 1137: "The case was covered under head note III and head note VI of the case of Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji (supra)" – directly applied ("covered under").

Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board VS Jasubhai Kabhai Harijan Etc. - 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 124: "In view of the judgment delivered in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat (2015) 9 SCC 1, we set aside the judgment" – followed, leads to setting aside another judgment.

STATE OF J&K VS J. S. MODI - 2016 0 Supreme(J&K) 595: "In 'Shri Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat and Ors.' reported in AIR 2015 SC 3623, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view" – cited approvingly.

Union of India through General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur VS A Cube Associates, Jodhpur through its Partner Ajay Yadav S/o R. P. Yadav - 2016 0 Supreme(Raj) 883: "In Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 1 after considering precedents it have been held as follows" – quoted and followed.

All other entries citing this case (e.g., [T. Narayana Murthy VS Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Srikakulam - 2016 0 Supreme(AP) 12, S. L. Telecom VS Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. - 2016 0 Supreme(J&K) 91, Sahadatta Alli Khan VS State of Odisha - 2016 0 Supreme(Ori) 160, Imteyaz Ahmad S/o Late S. K. Enayat Karim VS State of Bihar, through Chief Secretary - 2016 0 Supreme(Pat) 1426, Ramashankar, S/o Shri Ratiram VS Ishwari Prasad Thakur, S/o Kishun Lal Thakur - 2016 0 Supreme(Chh) 133, etc., up to Ar Landcraft LLP Ltd. vs U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal - 2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 169) use phrases like "relied upon", "held as under", "summarised the guidelines", "placing reliance", "ratio of the Apex Court", indicating consistent positive treatment as binding precedent.]

[These cases are cited for standalone legal principles without explicit negative treatment. They appear positively or neutrally in context, often alongside Jogendrasinhji:]

Sadhana Lodh VS National Insurance Company LTD. - 2003 3 Supreme 189: States principle on alternative remedies barring writs – no negative treatment indicated.

Rupa Ashok Hurra: Birla Textiles VS Ashok Hurra: Union Of India - 2002 3 Supreme 208: Discusses curative petitions – presented as "Very Important Point" and landmark, positive.

Surya Dev Rai VS Ram Chander Rai - 2003 5 Supreme 390: Affirms High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 unaffected by CPC amendment – no criticism.

Lokmat Newspapers Private LTD. VS Shankarprasad - 1999 6 Supreme 104: Outlines points on ID Act provisions – labeled "Important points", positive.

Ashok K. Jha VS Garden Silk Mills - 2009 6 Supreme 479: Distinguishes Article 226 vs. 227 for appeal maintainability – explanatory, relied upon.

RADHEY SHYAM VS CHHABI NATH - 2015 2 Supreme 459: Distinguishes judicial acts of tribunals vs. civil courts under Article 226/227 – cited for principle, positive.

Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Limited VS Maharashtra Air Port Development Company Ltd. - 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 587: Cites State of U.P. (2010) 11 SCC 242 and Competent Authority – neutral citation in context of land acquisition.

None. All cases show clear positive or neutral citation patterns. No ambiguity in treatment; no keywords like "overruled", "reversed", "distinguished negatively", "criticized", or "questioned" appear. Partial/incomplete entries (e.g., [Project Director, Uphsdp, Lucknow vs Commercial Court No. 1 Lucknow Thru Its Presiding Officer - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2287: "State of Gujrat", Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Railways vs Vanlallura, S/o. Vanlalhlua - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2294: "State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in") likely refer to the same positively treated Jogendrasinhji case, consistent with list patterns.]