9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (Act XL of 1948), is ultra vires the Legislature of the State of Bombay. 2. Whether section 4 of the above Act is ultra vires the State Legislature. 3. Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (Act XL of 1948), is ultra vires the Legislature of the State of Bombay: The Act purports to create an additional civil court for Greater Bombay with jurisdiction to try civil suits not exceeding a certain value. The respondents contended that the Act is ultra vires because it confers jurisdiction on the new court in matters beyond the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature under List II of the 7th Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, including matters reserved for the Central Legislature under List I. The argument revolves around the interpretation of legislative entries. Entry 1 of List II, which includes "administration of justice" and "constitution and organization of all courts except the Federal Court," is argued to encompass the power to confer jurisdiction on courts. This interpretation is supported by the historical legislative practice and the comprehensive nature of the term "administration of justice," which includes both civil and criminal justice. The court concluded that the Provincial Legislature has the power to invest courts with jurisdiction to try any cause or matter within its legislative competence. 2. Whether section 4 of the above Act is ultra vires the State Legislature: Section 4 of the Act allows the Provincial Government to extend the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court up to Rs. 25,000 by notification. The respondents argued that this constitutes an improper delegation of legislative power. However, the court found that the Legislature had already determined the policy and limits of jurisdiction, leaving only the timing and extent of extension to the discretion of the Provincial Government. This was deemed a form of conditional legislation, not a delegation of legislative power. The court referenced the principle established in Queen v. Burah, where conditional legislation was upheld as valid. 3. Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit: The High Court's jurisdiction was challenged based on entries 28 and 33 of List I, which relate to "cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes and other like instruments." The respondents argued that only the Central Legislature could confer jurisdiction over such matters. However, the court held that the Provincial Legislature's power to legislate on "administration of justice" and "constitution and organization of courts" includes the power to confer jurisdiction on courts for civil matters, unless explicitly barred by Central legislation. The court referenced the Privy Council decision in Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Limited Khulna, which supported the view that provincial legislation could incidentally affect matters in the Central List without being ultra vires. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, is intra vires the Provincial Legislature under entry 1 of List II, which covers "administration of justice" and "constitution and organization of all courts except the Federal Court." Section 4 of the Act, allowing the Provincial Government to extend the court's jurisdiction, is a valid form of conditional legislation. Consequently, the Bombay High Court does not have jurisdiction over suits cognizable by the City Civil Court under the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside.
|
