https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275172 The amendment reducing and regulating the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts was upheld as a valid exercise of State legislative competence over administration of justice and civil procedure. A change in pecuniary jurisdiction was treated as a procedural change of forum, not an interference with any substantive right, and a litigant has no vested right to insist on a particular forum. The Court held that hardship to some litigants does not by itself render a statute unconstitutional, and no violation of Articles 14 or 21 was shown. Article 39A and the Legal Services Authorities Act did not invalidate the legislative choice, and Article 130 was treated as enabling rather than mandatory. en-us Fri, 02 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:26:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275172 The amendment reducing and regulating the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts was upheld as a valid exercise of State legislative competence over administration of justice and civil procedure. A change in pecuniary jurisdiction was treated as a procedural change of forum, not an interference with any substantive right, and a litigant has no vested right to insist on a particular forum. The Court held that hardship to some litigants does not by itself render a statute unconstitutional, and no violation of Articles 14 or 21 was shown. Article 39A and the Legal Services Authorities Act did not invalidate the legislative choice, and Article 130 was treated as enabling rather than mandatory. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275172