| Headnote |
Bombay City Civil Court Act (XL of 1948)—Provincial Act constituting City Civil Court to try suits of civil nature of value up to Rs, 10,000—Provision empowering Provincial Government to invest court with jurisdiction up to Rs. 25,000—Validity of Act— Power of Provincial Legislature to make laws relating to jurisdic. tion of courts—Delegation of legislative powers—Conditional legis- dation—Government of India Act, 1935, Seventh Schedule, List 1, ttems 28 & 53; List HI, items 1 & 2; Lise Ill, items 15—Power to make laws as to ‘Administration of Justice’ and “Constitution and organisation of courts”, whether includes power to define “Jurisdiction and powers” of courts—Interpretation of Lists—Re- ference to legislative practice—Doctrine of pith and substance, The Bombay City Civil Court Act of 1948, an Act passed by the Provincial Legislature of Bombay, provided by s. 3 that the Provincial Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, establish for the Greater Bombay a court to be called the . Bombay City Civil Court, and that this court shall, notwith- standing anything contained in any law, have jurisdiction to re- ceive, try and dispose of all suits and other proceedings of a civil nature not exceeding Rs. 10,000 in value arising within Greater Bombay except certain kinds of suits which were specified in the Section, Section 4 of the Act provided that subject to the excep- tions ‘specified in s, 3 the Provincial Government may, by notifica-. tion in the official Gazette, invest the City Civil Court with juris- diction to receive, try and dispose of all suits and other proceed- ings of a civil nature arising within the Greater Bombay and of such value not exceeding Rs. 25,000 as may be specified in the notification. Section 12 barred the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to try suits and proceedings cognizable by the City Civil Court. In exercise of the powers conferred by s. 4 the Pro- vincial Government invested the City Civil Court with jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all suits and proceedings of a civil nature not exceeding Rs. 25,000 in value. The first respondent instituted a suit in the High Court of Bombay for recovery of Rs. 11,704 on the basis of a promissory note, contending that the Provincial Legislature had no power to make laws with respect to jurisdiction of courts in regard to suits on promissory notes which was>.a matter covered by item 53 of List I, and the Bombay City Civil Court Act of 1948 was therefore ultra vires. Tt was turther contended on his behalf that in any event s. 4 of the Act was in- valid as it involved a delegation of legislative powers to the Pro- vincial Government and that the suit was therefore cognisable by the High Court. Held by the Full Court—{i) that the impunged Act was a law with respect to a matter enumerated in List II and was not ultra vires; (ii) that as the legislature had exercised its judgment and determined that the City Civil Courts should be invested with pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs. 25,000 and all that was left to the discretion of the Provincial Government was the determination of the conditions under which the court should be invested with the enhanced jurisdiction, s. 4 did not involve any delegation of legislative -powers but was only an instance of conditional legis- lation and was not witra vires or invalid on this ground; (iii) inas- much as the impunged Act was in pith and substance a law with respect to a matter covered by List II, the fact that it incidental- ly affected suits relating to promissory notes (a subject falling within items 28 and 53 of List I) would not affect its validity and the suit was accordingly not cognisable by the High Court. Per Faz Aut, Menr Cuanp Manayan AND Muxueryea JJ.— The power of the Provincial Legislature to make laws with respect to “administration of justice” and “constitution and organisation of all courts” under item 1 of List I is wide enough to include the power to make laws with regard to the jurisdiction of courts established by the Provincial Legislature; the object of item 53 of List I, item 2 of List II and, item 15 of List III is to confer special powers on the Central and the Provincial Legisla- tures to make laws relating to the jurisdiction of courts with rest pect to the particular matters that are referred to in Lists 1 and II respectively and the Concurrent List, and these provisions do not in any way curtail the power of Provincial Legislature under Item 1 of List Hl to make laws with regard to jurisdiction of courts and to confer jurisdiction on courts established by it to try all causes of a civil nature subject to the power of the Central and Provincial Legislatures to make special provisions relating to particular subjects referred to in the Lists. Per Patangatt Sastat and Das JJ.—The words “adminis- tration of justice” and “constitution and organisation of all courts” in item 1 of List If must be understood in a restricted sense excluding from their scope “jurisdiction and powers of courts” as the latter subject is specially dealt with in item 2 of List HH. Itém 1 of List If does not therefore by itself authorise legislation with respect to jurisdiction and powers of courts, but the legislative power under item 2 in regard to ‘jurisdiction and powers of courts”,, which can legitimately be exercised with res- pect to any of the matters in List II, can be exercised with res- pect to administration of justice as this is one of the matters enumerated in that List, with the result that the subject of general jurisdiction of courts is brought within the authorised arca of provincial legislation; and as the Provincial Legislature is thus competent to make a law with respect to the general jurisdiction of the court, the apparent conflict with the central legislative power under item 53 of List I can be resolved by invoking the doctrine of pith and substance and incidental encroachment. (The legislative practice which prevailed in India before 1935 was relied on in this case in support of the view that the Pro- vincial Legislatures had power under the constitution of 1935 to invest courts constituted by them with general pecuniary juris- diction.] ‘ Quaere: Whether it was not open to the Legislatures of India under the Government of India Act of 1935 to delegate their legislative powers to other agencies. . Queen v. Burah (52A 178) applied. Jatindra Nath Gupta v. Province of Bihar (1949 F.C.R. 596) distinguished. Mulchand Kundummal Jagtiani y. Raman (51 Bom. L, R. 86), United Pro: vinces v. Atiqa Begum (1940 F.C.R. 110) and Prafulla Kumar Mukherjea and Others y. Bank of Commerce, Khulna (1947 FC.R. 28) referred to. ApprttaTe Jurispicrion: Civil Appeal No. 10 of Appeal from a Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Chagla CJ. and Tendolkar J.) dated 29th March, 1950, in Suit No. 24 of 1950. |
