9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1755 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation of Statute - Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the second Respondent - whether a private agreement entered into between the Appellant and the second Respondent in the form of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the latter can, by conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at Chennai, oust the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution? HELD THAT - The Constitution and Bye Laws of the second Respondent are a private agreement between the Appellant and the second Respondent. The decision of the Bombay High Court relied solely on Clause 21 to hold that its own writ jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of all other courts, is ousted. Whether a private agreement can oust the writ jurisdiction of a High Court merits further enquiry - It is a well settled principle of contract law that parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract would constitute an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings and contravene Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act 1872. Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate. But where several courts would have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute, they can stipulate that a suit be brought exclusively before one of the several courts, to the exclusion of the others. Clause 21 does not oust the jurisdiction of all courts. Rather, the Appellant and the second Respondent have agreed to submit suits or legal actions to the courts at Chennai - Article 226 (1) of the Constitution confers on High Courts the power to issue writs, and consequently, the jurisdiction to entertain actions for the issuance of writs. Article 226. (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose . The mere existence of alternate forums where the aggrieved party may secure relief does not create a legal bar on a High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction. It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court amongst several factors. Thus, the mere fact that the High Court at Madras is capable of granting adequate relief to the Appellant does not create a legal bar on the Bombay High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction in the present matter - In exercising its discretion to entertain a particular case Under Article 226, a High Court may take into consideration various factors including the nature of the injustice that is alleged by the Petitioner, whether or not an alternate remedy exists, or whether the facts raise a question of constitutional interpretation. These factors are not exhaustive and we do not propose to enumerate what factors should or should not be taken into consideration. It is sufficient for the present purposes to say that the High Court must take a holistic view of the facts as submitted in the writ petition and make a determination on the facts and circumstances of each unique case. The court examined the facts holistically, noting that the contract was executed and to be performed in Aligarh, and the arbitrator was to function at Aligarh. It did consider that the contract conferred jurisdiction on the courts at Aligarh, but this was one factor amongst several considered by the court in determining that the High Court of Calcutta did not have jurisdiction - In the present case, the Bombay High Court has relied solely on Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws to hold that its own writ jurisdiction is ousted. The Bombay High Court has failed to examine the case holistically and make a considered determination as to whether or not it should, in its discretion, exercise its powers Under Article 226. The scrutiny to be applied to every writ petition Under Article 226 by the High Court is a crucial safeguard of the Rule of law under the Constitution in the relevant territorial jurisdiction. It is not open to a High Court to abdicate this responsibility merely due to the existence of a privately negotiated document ousting its jurisdiction. It is certainly open to the High Court to take into consideration the fact that the Appellant and the second Respondent consented to resolve all their legal disputes before the courts at Chennai. However, this can be a factor within the broader factual matrix of the case. The High Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction Under Article 226 invoking the principle of forum non conveniens in an appropriate case. The High Court must look at the case of the Appellant holistically and make a determination as to whether it would be proper to exercise its writ jurisdiction - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a private agreement can oust the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Interpretation and application of Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the second Respondent. 3. The discretionary nature of the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226. 4. The impact of alternate remedies on the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether a private agreement can oust the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution: The primary issue in this case was whether Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the second Respondent, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at Chennai, could oust the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that parties cannot by a private agreement oust the writ jurisdiction of a High Court. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court is fundamentally discretionary and cannot be completely excluded by statute or private agreement. This principle is intrinsic to the basic structure of the Constitution, as established in Minerva Mills v. Union of India and L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. 2. Interpretation and application of Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the second Respondent: Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the second Respondent stipulated that any suits or legal actions against the Federation shall be instituted only in the courts at Chennai. The Supreme Court noted that while parties can confer jurisdiction on one amongst multiple courts having proper jurisdiction, they cannot oust the jurisdiction of all courts. This principle was set out in A.B.C. Laminart (P) Limited v. A.P. Agencies, Salem. However, the Court clarified that this principle applies to civil suits and not to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Bombay High Court erred in relying solely on Clause 21 to hold that its writ jurisdiction was ousted. 3. The discretionary nature of the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226: The Supreme Court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is discretionary. The High Court must take a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The decision whether or not to entertain an action under its writ jurisdiction is fundamentally discretionary and cannot be circumscribed by strict legal principles. The High Court's powers under its writ jurisdiction are conferred in aid of justice and are crucial to ensuring the Rule of law within its territorial jurisdiction. 4. The impact of alternate remedies on the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court: The existence of an alternate remedy, whether adequate or not, does not create a legal bar on the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction. It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court amongst several factors. The Supreme Court cited several decisions, including Uttar Pradesh State Spinning Co. Limited v. R.S. Pandey and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh, to establish that the writ jurisdiction of a High Court can be exercised even where alternate remedies exist. The Bombay High Court failed to examine the case holistically and make a considered determination as to whether or not it should, in its discretion, exercise its powers under Article 226. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated 25 September 2018, and restored Writ Petition No. 7770 of 2017 to the file of the High Court for being considered afresh. The Court reiterated that the High Court must look at the case holistically and make a determination as to whether it would be proper to exercise its writ jurisdiction, taking into consideration various factors including the nature of the injustice alleged and the existence of alternate remedies.
|
