Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1958 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1958 (1) TMI 41 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain revision applications under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act after its amendment by U.P. Act 17 of 1957.
2. Application of Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act to pending revision applications.
3. Interpretation of "right" and "privilege" under Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act.
4. Application of the legal maxim "Nova constitutio, futuris formam imponere debet, non praeteritis."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court Post-Amendment:
The primary issue addressed was whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to entertain revision applications under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which were filed before the amendment by U.P. Act 17 of 1957. The amendment transferred the jurisdiction from the High Court to the District Courts. The Court noted that the amendment came into force on 4th June 1957, and any application filed after this date would fall under the jurisdiction of the District Courts as per the new Section 25.

2. Application of Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act:
The Court examined Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, which deals with the effect of repeals on existing rights, privileges, obligations, and legal proceedings. Specifically, it was considered whether the amendment affected applications in revision that were filed but not disposed of before the amendment date. The Court held that Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act conferred no right or privilege on any person within the meaning of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, and thus, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was not preserved for applications filed after the amendment.

3. Interpretation of "Right" and "Privilege":
The Court clarified that Section 25 of the former Act did not confer a "right accrued" or "privilege" within the meaning of Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act. The term "right" must be one that has accrued under a repealed Act, and "privilege" is defined as an exceptional right or advantage, which Section 25 did not provide. Thus, neither Clause (c) nor Clause (e) of Section 6 was applicable in preserving the High Court's jurisdiction over pending revision applications.

4. Legal Maxim - Nova constitutio, futuris formam imponere debet, non praeteritis:
The Court invoked the legal maxim, meaning a new state of the law ought to affect the future, not the past. It was emphasized that the Legislature did not intend to cause injustice by requiring litigants to restart proceedings in a different court. The Court reasoned that it would be unjust to compel litigants, who had already filed applications and engaged counsel under the old law, to initiate new proceedings in another court due to the amendment. Therefore, the Court concluded that it retained jurisdiction to hear applications in revision filed before the amendment date, provided the Court had already called for the records.

Separate Judgments by Judges:

V. Bhargava, J.:
Judge Bhargava agreed with the Chief Justice but preferred to base his decision on Clause (b) of Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act. He argued that the High Court's act of calling for the record was something duly done under the repealed Section 25, and thus, the High Court retained jurisdiction to pass further orders. This interpretation ensures that litigants are not unfairly deprived of the High Court's judgment due to delays beyond their control.

M.L. Chaturvedi, J.:
Judge Chaturvedi concurred with the judgment of Judge Bhargava, reinforcing the view that the High Court retained jurisdiction over pending revision applications where records had been called for before the amendment date.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that it retained jurisdiction to hear revision applications filed before 4th June 1957, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, provided the records had been called for before the amendment date. This decision was grounded in the principles of justice and the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the U.P. General Clauses Act.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates