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>Appeal Allowed: Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 Deemed Valid</h1> <h3>State of Bombay Versus Narothamdas Jethabai and Ors.</h3> State of Bombay Versus Narothamdas Jethabai and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (Act XL of 1948), is ultra vires the Legislature of the State of Bombay.2. Whether Section 4 of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, is ultra vires the State Legislature.3. Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (Act XL of 1948), is ultra vires the Legislature of the State of Bombay:The respondents argued that the Act is ultra vires because it confers jurisdiction on the new court not only in respect of matters within the competence of the Provincial Legislature under List II of the 7th Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, but also in respect of matters under List I, reserved for the Central Legislature. The Court examined entries 1 and 2 of List II, and entry 53 of List I, concluding that 'administration of justice' and 'constitution and organization of all courts' are provincial subjects and the Provincial Legislature can invest courts with power and jurisdiction to administer justice. The Court held that the Provincial Legislature has the power to legislate on 'administration of justice' and 'constitution and organization of courts,' which includes defining, enlarging, altering, and diminishing the jurisdiction of the courts. The Court concluded that the Act is intra vires the Bombay Legislature under entry 1 of List II.2. Whether Section 4 of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, is ultra vires the State Legislature:Section 4 allows the Provincial Government to invest the City Civil Court with jurisdiction to try suits and proceedings of a civil nature up to Rs. 25,000. The respondents contended that this section is invalid as it delegates legislative power to the Provincial Government. The Court referred to the principle of conditional legislation, where the Legislature can delegate the power to determine facts or conditions upon which the law depends. The Court held that Section 4 is an instance of conditional legislation and does not delegate legislative power but prescribes how the Legislature's decision is to be implemented. The Court concluded that Section 4 is valid and does not amount to an improper delegation of legislative power.3. Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit:The respondents argued that the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit because the Act and the notification under Section 4 are ultra vires. The Court examined the jurisdictional provisions and held that the High Court's jurisdiction is barred by the Act, which confers jurisdiction on the City Civil Court for suits up to Rs. 25,000. The Court concluded that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit, as the jurisdiction is vested in the City Civil Court by the valid provisions of the Act.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, with the Court holding that the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, is intra vires the Legislature of the State of Bombay, Section 4 of the Act is valid as it constitutes conditional legislation, and the Bombay High Court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit. The judgment of the High Court was set aside.
TaxTMI 