1958 (3) TMI 81 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the United State High Court over proceedings from erstwhile Princely States.
2. Retrospective application of Section 25 of the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya-Bharat) High Court of Judicature Act, 1949.
3. Competence of the appeal filed under Section 25 of the Act.
4. Interpretation of Section 2(b) of the Act concerning pending and arising proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the United State High Court over proceedings from erstwhile Princely States:
The Princely State of Indore, before merging into the Union of India, had its own laws and courts, including a High Court. The merger into the United State of Gwalior, Indore, and Malwa (Madhya-Bharat) was formalized through a Covenant on April 22, 1948. This Covenant stipulated that the administration of each covenanting State would be transferred to the Raj Pramukh by July 1, 1948, vesting all rights, authority, and jurisdiction in the United State. Ordinance No. 2 of 1948 established a High Court for the United State, ceasing the function of the Indore High Court from July 29, 1948. Ordinance No. 14 of 1948 addressed anomalies regarding the transfer of cases from State High Courts to the United State High Court.

2. Retrospective application of Section 25 of the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya-Bharat) High Court of Judicature Act, 1949:
The Act, effective from January 18, 1949, repealed Ordinance No. 2 of 1948. Section 25 of the Act provided for special appeals to the Full Bench of the High Court from decisions of a Divisional Bench. The appellant argued that Section 2(b) of the Act applied the Act, including Section 25, to pending proceedings and those arising after the inclusion of a State in the United State. The High Court had previously ruled that Section 25 did not apply to judgments delivered before the Act came into force, a view challenged by the appellant.

3. Competence of the appeal filed under Section 25 of the Act:
The appellant filed an appeal to the Full Bench on March 31, 1949, under Section 25, which was dismissed by the Full Bench on the grounds that Section 25 was not applicable. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 25 gave a right of appeal from the Divisional Bench's judgment in proceedings mentioned in Section 2(b). The Court concluded that Section 2(b) applied Section 25 to any proceeding pending or arising after the inclusion of a State in the United State, thus giving retrospective effect to Section 25 and making the appellant's appeal competent.

4. Interpretation of Section 2(b) of the Act concerning pending and arising proceedings:
Section 2(b) of the Act extended its application to all civil and criminal proceedings pending in any State's courts on the date of its inclusion in the United State and to proceedings arising thereafter. The Supreme Court interpreted that the language of Section 2(b) was clear and unambiguous, applying all sections of the Act, including Section 25, to the specified proceedings. The Court rejected the argument that Section 2(b) only extended jurisdiction without affecting vested rights, stating that the plain language of the section indicated a retrospective application.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Full Bench's decree and remitting the case to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for a decision on the merits. The judgment clarified that Section 25 of the Act applied retrospectively to proceedings pending or arising after the inclusion of a State in the United State, thus validating the appellant's appeal. The additional applications for special leave to appeal and to file additional documents were dismissed without costs.