TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Interpretation of Section 87: Pre-1960 Bombay High Court decisions binding on Gujarat High Court</h1> The Court held that decisions of the Bombay High Court before the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, are binding on the Gujarat High Court. This ruling was ... - Issues Involved: Binding nature of Bombay High Court precedents on Gujarat High Court after the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Binding Nature of Precedents:The core issue is whether the Gujarat High Court is bound by the decisions of the Bombay High Court delivered before 1-5-1960. The petition arose when the learned Advocate General relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court, and opposing counsel argued that the Gujarat High Court was not bound by such decisions. The matter was referred to a Full Bench due to its importance.2. Interpretation of Section 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960:The Advocate General argued that Section 87, read with other sections of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, makes the decisions of the Bombay High Court binding on the Gujarat High Court. Section 87 states: 'The provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial references in any such law to the State of Bombay shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that State immediately before the appointed day.'3. Definition of 'Law' and Jurisdiction:The Advocate General stressed that 'law in force' should be interpreted comprehensively to include decisions of the Bombay High Court. Section 2(d) defines 'law' to include any enactment, ordinance, regulation, order, bye-law, rule, scheme, notification, or other instrument having the force of law before the appointed day. Section 30 states that the High Court of Gujarat shall have the same jurisdiction, powers, and authority as the High Court of Bombay in respect of the territories included in the State of Gujarat.4. Counter-Argument by the Petitioner:The petitioner argued that Section 3 creates a new State and does not imply that the entire law, including decisions of the Bombay High Court, continues to apply to Gujarat. Sections 88 and 89 only empower the States to adapt and modify statutes, not judicial decisions.5. Court's Interpretation of Section 87:The Court opined that Section 87 deals with the territorial extent and application of laws in force immediately before the appointed day. The first part of Section 87 ensures that the reorganization does not affect the territorial extent of the laws in force. The Court emphasized that the law in force in the territories of the State of Bombay continues to apply to the territories forming the new State of Gujarat.6. Comprehensive Connotation of 'Law in Force':The Court found no difficulty in interpreting 'law in force' to include judicial precedents. The expression should be understood in a broad sense, leading to the conclusion that decisions of the Bombay High Court before the appointed day are binding on the Gujarat High Court.7. Argument of Coordinate Jurisdiction:The Advocate General argued that the Gujarat High Court is a successor to the Bombay High Court and thus shares coordinate jurisdiction. The Court, however, did not fully agree with this view, stating that coordinate jurisdiction typically involves equal rank and status over the same subject matter within the same territory and time.8. Systems of Law Derived from Parent State:The Advocate General also argued that the legal systems of Maharashtra and Gujarat are derived from the parent State of Bombay, implying that the decisions of the Bombay High Court should be binding. The Court, having already concluded based on Section 87, did not delve further into this argument.Conclusion:The Court concluded that the decisions of the Bombay High Court given before the appointed day are binding on the Gujarat High Court. This conclusion was reached by interpreting the relevant sections of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, particularly Section 87, which ensures the continuity and application of the law in force before the appointed day in the territories now constituting the State of Gujarat.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
