Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amendment reducing and regulating the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts was unconstitutional as violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The impugned legislation fell within the State's legislative competence under the constitutional scheme governing administration of justice and civil procedure. A statute is not liable to be struck down merely because it causes hardship to some litigants; judicial review is attracted only when the law is shown to violate Part III or another constitutional provision. The Court held that a litigant has a right to seek a remedy, but not a vested right to insist on a particular forum. A change in pecuniary jurisdiction is a change of forum and therefore procedural in nature, and such a change does not affect any substantive right or the guarantee of life and liberty. Article 39A and the Legal Services Authorities Act do not invalidate a legislative choice regulating court jurisdiction, and Article 130 was treated as an enabling provision, not a mandatory command.
Conclusion: The challenge to the amendment failed; the provision limiting pecuniary jurisdiction was upheld and the applications were dismissed.