Special Court civil jurisdiction upheld as constitutionally valid; exclusion of ordinary civil courts found within legislative competence.

Section 9A of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 was upheld as valid because it concerns the jurisdiction, powers, authority and procedure of the Special Court in civil matters, not a law on money-lending. The Court read the Seventh Schedule as permitting legislative provision on court administration, civil procedure, evidence, and the jurisdiction and powers of courts within the relevant constitutional field. Vesting civil jurisdiction in the Special Court and excluding ordinary civil court jurisdiction for the covered class of matters was held not to offend constitutional limits. Any challenge to jurisdiction over a particular claim was left to be raised before the Special Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 9A of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, conferring civil jurisdiction on the Special Court and ousting the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts in specified matters, was beyond legislative competence or unconstitutional.

Analysis: The challenge proceeded on the footing that the dispute arose from a money-lending transaction and therefore fell within the State List. The Court rejected that characterisation, holding that section 9A is not a law on money-lending but a provision relating to the jurisdiction, powers, authority and procedure of the Special Court in civil matters. The Seventh Schedule was read as permitting Parliament and the State Legislatures to legislate on administration and organisation of courts, evidence, civil procedure, and the jurisdiction and powers of courts in relation to matters within the Concurrent List. The Court further held that vesting civil-court powers in a Special Court and excluding ordinary civil court jurisdiction in the covered class of matters did not offend constitutional limitations. The objection regarding the Special Court's jurisdiction over the particular claim was left to be raised before the Special Court itself, as jurisdictional facts were not examined in the writ proceeding.

Conclusion: Section 9A was upheld as constitutionally valid and within legislative competence, and the writ challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned statutory amendment was sustained, and the petitioner obtained no relief in the writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision that transfers specified civil matters to a Special Court and excludes ordinary civil court jurisdiction is valid when it operates within Parliament's competence over the constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and procedure of courts in the relevant legislative field.

---