1995 (7) TMI 423 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court Bench at Lucknow.
2. Interpretation of Clause 14 of the High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948.
3. Validity of the Division Bench's Judgment in Chini Mill's Case.

Summary:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court Bench at Lucknow:
The primary issue before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court was whether it had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench concluded that the Lucknow Bench had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the majority of the sugar mills involved were situated outside the Oudh area. This conclusion was based on the interpretation that the Lucknow Bench could only exercise jurisdiction in respect of cases "pertaining to" the Oudh area alone.

2. Interpretation of Clause 14 of the High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948:
Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order was central to the dispute. The Division Bench interpreted the clause to mean that the Lucknow Bench could not exercise jurisdiction over cases arising outside the Oudh area. However, this interpretation was later overruled by a Full Bench of the High Court, which held that the Division Bench's judgment was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Nasiruddin Vs. STA Tribunal AIR 1976 SC 331. The Supreme Court reiterated that the expression "cause of action" should be understood as it is generally, and if any part of the cause of action arose within the Oudh area, the Lucknow Bench would have jurisdiction.

3. Validity of the Division Bench's Judgment in Chini Mill's Case:
The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in its interpretation of Clause 14 and in not following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Nasiruddin's case. The Division Bench's reasoning that the incorporation of the Explanation to Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure altered the interpretation of Clause 14 was deemed wholly perverse. The Supreme Court held that the law laid down in Nasiruddin's case still holds good and that the Division Bench's judgment was incorrect and unsound.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated September 23, 1994, in writ petition No. 35951 of 1994, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court also noted that all related proceedings pending before the High Court would be rendered infructuous as a result of this judgment.