1948 (11) TMI 10 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to further try and determine a suit initially entertained.
2. Legislative amendments affecting the jurisdiction of the High Court.
3. Retrospective application of legislative amendments.
4. Transfer of suits to appropriate courts under new legislative provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to further try and determine a suit initially entertained:

The primary issue in this matter was whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to further try and determine a suit that it had initially entertained before legislative amendments came into effect. The plaintiff filed a suit on September 12, 1947, to recover a sum of Rs. 1,000 with interest. At the time of filing, the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, as the amount exceeded Rs. 1,000. However, legislative changes in 1948, specifically Bombay Act XLIV of 1948, aimed to deprive the High Court of jurisdiction over such suits.

2. Legislative amendments affecting the jurisdiction of the High Court:

In May 1948, the Bombay Legislature enacted several laws, including Bombay Act XL of 1948 (Bombay City Civil Court Act), Bombay Act XLI of 1948 (Bombay High Court Letters Patent Amendment Act), and Bombay Act XLIV of 1948 (Presidency Small Cause Courts (Bombay Amendment) Act). These acts collectively aimed to transfer jurisdiction from the High Court to the Small Cause Court and the newly established Bombay City Civil Court for suits within specified monetary limits. Specifically, Bombay Act XLI of 1948 amended Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, stating, "the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court at Bombay, or the Bombay City Civil Court."

3. Retrospective application of legislative amendments:

The court examined whether the amendments had retrospective effect, thereby affecting suits already filed in the High Court. The principle established in English law, which was followed here, is that no statute should be construed to have retrospective operation unless clearly stated or necessarily implied. The court found no such clear terms or necessary implication in Bombay Act XLI of 1948 to suggest that it had retrospective effect. The court cited the Federal Court's judgment in Venugopala v. Krishnaswami, which recognized that a suitor has a vested right to have proceedings tried and disposed of by the tribunal where it was initiated.

4. Transfer of suits to appropriate courts under new legislative provisions:

The court noted that while similar provisions for transferring suits were made in Bombay Act LVII of 1947 and Bombay Act XL of 1948, no such provision was included in Bombay Act XLIV of 1948. The absence of a transfer provision in Bombay Act XLIV of 1948 was either purposeful or inadvertent. The court concluded that this omission indicated that the legislature did not intend to transfer suits already filed in the High Court to the Small Cause Court.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the High Court retained jurisdiction to try and determine the suit, as it was validly received and entertained before the legislative amendments came into effect. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction to "receive, try and determine" suits should be read conjunctively. The enactment of Bombay Act XLI of 1948 did not retrospectively take away the High Court's jurisdiction over suits already filed. The issue of whether the Small Cause Court is subordinate to the High Court and whether the suit should be transferred was deemed unnecessary to address.

Result: The issue of whether the High Court has jurisdiction to further try and determine the suit was answered in the affirmative. The costs of the trial of this issue were to be costs in the cause.