TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Rules Prevail over Amended CPC: Supreme Court Upholds Decision</h1> <h3>IRIDIUM INDIA TELECOM LTD. Versus MOTOROLA INC.</h3> The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision that the amended Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC does not apply to suits on the Original Side of the ... Whether the amended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') would not apply to the suits on the Original Side of the High Court and that such suits would continue to be governed by the High Court Original Side Rules? Issues Involved:1. Applicability of amended Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to suits on the Original Side of the High Court.2. Legislative intent behind the amendments to Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC.3. Historical development and application of CPC to Chartered High Courts.4. Interpretation of Section 129 of CPC and its impact on the High Court's rule-making power.5. Validity and precedence of High Court Original Side Rules over CPC amendments.6. Principle of stare decisis and its application to the case.7. Legal effect of Section 16 of the Amending Act, 2002.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Amended Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC:The Supreme Court addressed whether the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC apply to suits on the Original Side of the High Court. The High Court had held that such suits would continue to be governed by the High Court Original Side Rules, not by the amended CPC provisions.2. Legislative Intent Behind Amendments:The appellant contended that the legislative intent behind amending Order VIII Rule 1 was to shorten litigation periods and discourage dishonest defendants from seeking endless adjournments. The appellant argued that the High Court rules, framed under Section 129 of CPC, could not override the amended Order VIII Rule 1, which is part of the substantive statute.3. Historical Development and Application of CPC:The judgment delved into the historical application of CPC to Chartered High Courts, tracing back to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1859, and subsequent amendments. It was noted that the Legislature had consistently made a distinction between proceedings in other civil courts and those on the Original Side of Chartered High Courts, maintaining this distinction through various amendments.4. Interpretation of Section 129 of CPC:Section 129 of CPC allows High Courts to make rules regulating their own procedure in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction, notwithstanding anything in the CPC. The Supreme Court interpreted this to mean that the High Courts have the latitude to adapt procedural rules to meet their specific requirements, as long as these rules are consistent with the Letters Patent establishing the High Courts.5. Validity and Precedence of High Court Rules:The Court upheld the validity of the High Court's Original Side Rules, stating that these rules are not subordinate to the CPC. It emphasized that Section 129's non obstante clause was intended to bypass the entire body of the CPC concerning the procedure on the Original Side of Chartered High Courts.6. Principle of Stare Decisis:The principle of stare decisis was applied, noting that the interpretation of Section 129 had been uniformly followed in several judgments of various High Courts. The Supreme Court held that even if an alternative interpretation was possible, the long-standing judicial precedent should be maintained to ensure legal stability.7. Legal Effect of Section 16 of the Amending Act, 2002:The appellant argued that Section 16 of the Amending Act, 2002, which introduced Order VIII Rule 1, should override any inconsistent High Court rules. However, the Supreme Court found that Section 129 of CPC, protected by the non obstante clause, remains unaffected by the amendments, and the High Court rules continue to prevail for proceedings on the Original Side.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC do not apply to suits on the Original Side of the High Court. The Court upheld the validity of the High Court's Original Side Rules, emphasizing the historical and legislative context, and the principle of stare decisis. There was no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
