Successor High Court precedent: former Bombay High Court rulings were not preserved as law in force, but remained binding in Gujarat.

Pre-reorganisation decisions of the former Bombay High Court were not "law in force" preserved under Section 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, because judicial precedents do not operate as territorially extended law in the statutory sense. However, the Gujarat High Court, as the successor court exercising the same jurisdiction over transferred territories, was required to follow those decisions to preserve certainty and continuity in administration of justice. The earlier Bombay precedents were therefore binding on the Gujarat High Court as if they were its own prior decisions, subject to the ordinary hierarchy of later overruling by a larger bench or a superior court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the decisions of the former Bombay High Court given before 1 May 1960 constituted "law in force immediately before the appointed day" within Section 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960. (ii) Whether those prior decisions bound the Gujarat High Court as a matter of co-ordinate jurisdiction or successor jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the decisions of the former Bombay High Court given before 1 May 1960 constituted "law in force immediately before the appointed day" within Section 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960.

Analysis: Section 87 was enacted to preserve the territorial extent and application of laws in force immediately before the appointed day. The expression "law in force" was construed in the context of the statute and the reorganisation scheme. Judicial decisions were held not to be law operating territorially in the sense contemplated by Section 87. They do not extend or apply to territories as such, and treating them as preserved law would produce untenable consequences, including petrification of pre-existing precedents and inability of the court to correct them through ordinary judicial hierarchy.

Conclusion: The prior decisions of the Bombay High Court did not constitute "law in force" within Section 87.

Issue (ii): Whether those prior decisions bound the Gujarat High Court as a matter of co-ordinate jurisdiction or successor jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Gujarat High Court was constituted as the successor court exercising the same jurisdiction, power, and authority in relation to the transferred territories. Although the former Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court were not treated as co-ordinate courts in the strict sense, the continuity of jurisdiction and the need for certainty, uniformity, and continuity in administration of justice required the predecessor court's decisions to be followed. The earlier Bombay precedents were therefore to be treated as binding on the Gujarat High Court in the same manner as if they were its own earlier decisions, subject to the ordinary rules governing later overruling within the High Court hierarchy and by superior courts.

Conclusion: The prior decisions of the Bombay High Court were binding on the Gujarat High Court as if they were decisions of the Gujarat High Court itself.

Final Conclusion: The reorganisation of the State did not preserve Bombay precedents as statutory "law in force", but the continuity of judicial authority required those precedents to be followed in Gujarat as binding precedent.

Ratio Decidendi: Pre-reorganisation judicial precedents are not "law in force" under the territorial-continuity provision, but a successor High Court exercising the same jurisdiction over transferred territories must follow the predecessor High Court's decisions to maintain certainty and continuity of justice.

---