http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: INDU BHUSAN DE & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/08/1986

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR 1783            1986 SCR  (3) 547  1986 SCC  (3) 682        JT 1986   129  1986 SCALE  (2)211

ACT:      Calcutta City Civil Court Act (21 of 1953) section 5(2) fixing local limits and pecuniary jurisdiction of City Civil Courts-Whether the  Act is  ultra vires the Constitution for want of  legislative competence  of the  State  Legislature- Entry 53  of List I, Entries 1 and 2 of List II and Entry 15 of List III of the Government of India Act, 1935 (of Entry I IA of  List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution)-Binding nature of  the Supreme Court decision-Constitution of India, 1950 Article 141.

HEADNOTE:      The Calcutta  City Civil  Court Act empowered the State Government to  establish a civil court to be called the City Civil Court  and under section 5(2) thereof the local limits and the  jurisdiction of  the City Civil Court was to be the city of  Calcutta. Section  5(2) as  it stands now fixed the jurisdiction of  the City Civil Court at Rupees one lakh and excluded the High Court’s jurisdiction up to that limit.      The appellant  moved the  Calcutta  High  Court  for  a declaration that the Act was ultra vires the jurisdiction of the State  Legislature and  contended that  Parliament alone had the  legislative competence  to make  law affecting  the jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned Single Judge and also the  Division Bench  negatived the appellant’s plea and held that  the Act  was intra  vires the Constitution. Hence the appeal by certificate.      Dismissing the appeal, the Court, ^      HELD: 1.  Entries 1  and 2 of List II of the Government of India Act, 1935 (now Entry llA of List III of the Seventh Schedule of  the  Constitution)  authorised  law  making  on subject  of  administration  of  justice,  constitution  and organisation of  courts and  jurisdiction and powers thereof excepting in  regard to the Supreme Court. The Calcutta City Civil Court  Act received  the Presidential  assent and  was therefore,  competent   to  bring  about  a  change  in  the prevailing position obtaining 548 under the Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court.[551E-G]      2. In  Narotham Das’s  case, the Supreme Court took the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

view namely,  "administration of  justice" authorised making of  law   conferring  on,  or  talking  away  from,  courts, jurisdiction to  entertain cases. Inasmuch as the provisions of the  Bombay City  Civil Court  Act,  1948  considered  in Narotham Das’s  case and the provisions of the Calcutta Act, are in  pari materia, the High Court correctly held that the Act was  intra vires  the Constitution.  The decision of the Constitution Bench  in Narotham  Das’s  case  is  clear  and binding precedent  under Article  141 of  the  Constitution, against the appellant’s stand. [551E-F;H]      State of Bombay v. Narothamdas Jethabhai & Anr., [1951] S.C.R. 51, followed.      Amarendra Nath  Roy Chowdhury v. Bikash Chandra Ghose & Anr., A.I.R. 1957 Calcutta 534, approved.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2065 of 1971      From the  Judgment and  order dated  28.7.1970  of  the Calcutta High Court in original order No. 125 of 1970.      B.P. Maheshwari, S.N. Aggarwal and B.M. Bagaria for the Appellants.      D.N. Mukarjee and G.S. Chatterjee for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal by certificate from the Calcutta High  Court assails  the affirming  judgment of the Division Bench  upholding the  dismissal of  a writ petition challenging the  vires of  the Calcutta City Civil Court Act (21 of  1953) and  its later amendment on the ground of want of legislative competence of the State Legislature. The City Civil Court  Act (’Act’  for  short),  empowered  the  State Government to  establish a civil court to be called the City Civil Court and under section 5 thereof the local limits and the jurisdiction  of the City Civil Court was to be the city of Calcutta. Sub-section (2) of s.5 provided:           "Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and           (4), the 549           City Civil  Court shall  have jurisdiction and the           High Court  shall not  have  jurisdiction  to  try           suits  and  proceedings  of  a  civil  nature  not           exceeding Rs. 10,000-in value."      The value of Rs. 10,000 was later enhanced to Rs.50,000 and again  to Rs.  1 lakh.  The appellant moved the Calcutta High Court  for a  declaration that  the Act was ultra vires the State  legislature. It  was  contended  that  Parliament alone had  the legislative  competence to make law affecting the jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned single judge as also  the Division  Bench negatived  the appellant’s plea and have held that the Act was intra vires the Constitution.      It is  appropriate to refer to the relevant legislative entries in  the three  lists-Union, State  and Concurrent-as they stood  in 1953  when the  Act was enacted. In the Union List entries 77, 78 and 95 are relevant. They provide:           "77. Constitution,  organisation, jurisdiction and           powers of the Supreme Court (including contempt of           such Court),  and the  fees taken therein; persons           entitled to practise be fore the Supreme Court.           78.  Constitution   and  organisation   (including           vacations) of the High Courts except provisions as           to officers  and servants  of High  Court; persons           entitled to practise before the High Court.           95. Jurisdiction  and powers of all courts, except

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

         the Supreme  Court, with  respect to  any  of  the           matters in this list; admiralty jurisdiction." Entry 3, List II at the relevant time provided:           "3. Administration  of justice,  constitution  and           organisation of  all  courts  except  the  Supreme           Court and  the High  Courts; officers and servants           of the  High Court;  procedure in rent and revenue           courts;  fees  taken  in  all  courts  except  the           Supreme Court." Entry 65, List II provides:           "65. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except           the 550           Supreme Court,  with respect to any of the matters           in this list." Entry 46, List III provides:           "46. Jurisdiction  and power of all courts, except           the Supreme  Court, with  respect to  any  of  the           matters in this list."      A Constitution  Bench of  this Court in State of Bombay v. Narothamdas  Jethabhai & Anr., [1951] S.C.R. 51, examined the validity of the Bombay City Civil Court Act of 1948. the provisions of  that Act  and the  impugned  Act  are  almost similar. The challenge to the vires of the Bombay Act had to be examined  keeping the  provisions of  Government of India Act, 1935,  in view  inasmuch as that was a pre Constitution legislation. Each  of the  learned Judges  wrote a  separate judgment but all of them were agreed that the Bombay Act was a law with respect to a matter enumerated in List II and was not ultra  vires. Entry  53 of  List I  was to the following effect:           "53. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except           the Federal  Court, with  respect to  any  of  the           matters in this list .. " Entries 1 and 2 of List II were as under:           "1....The administration  of justice, constitution           and organisation of all courts, except the Federal           Court, and fees taken therein; ......           2. Jurisdiction  and powers  of all courts, except           the Federal  Court, with  respect to  any  of  the           matters  in  this  list;  procedure  in  Rent  and           Revenue Courts." Entry 15 of List III was to the following effect:           "15. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except           the Federal  Court, with  respect to  any  of  the           matters in this List."      The two  relevant entries  in List  II of  the  Seventh Schedule  of  the  Constitution  authorised  law  making  on subject  of  administration  of  justice,  constitution  and organisation of courts and jurisdiction and pow- 551 ers thereof  excepting in regard to the Supreme Court. These were the  two expressions with reference to which Fazal Ali, J. in Narotham Das’s case observed thus:           "...the expressions  "administration  of  justice"           and "constitution  and  organisation  of  courts",           which  have   been  used   therein   without   any           qualification or  limitation, are  wide enough  to           include the  power and jurisdiction of courts, for           how can  justice be administered if courts have no           power and  jurisdiction to  administer it, and how           can  courts   function  without   any   power   of           jurisdiction. Once  this fact  is clearly grasped,           it follows  that, by  virtue of  the words used in           Entry I of List II, the Provincial Legislature can

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

         invest the courts constituted by it with power and           jurisdiction to try every cause or matter that can           be dealt  with by  a court  of civil  or  criminal           jurisdiction    and     that    the     expression           ’’administration  of   justice"  must  necessarily           include the  power to try suits and proceedings of           a civil as well as criminal nature irrespective of           who the  parties to the suit or proceeding or what           its  subject-matter   may  be.   This  power  must           necessarily  include   the  power   of   defining,           enlarging, altering,  amending and diminishing the           jurisdiction of  the  courts  and  defining  their           jurisdiction territorially and pecuniarily.’ The other  learned Judges  constituting the  Bench took  the same view  namely, "administration  of  justice"  authorised making of  law conferring  on, or  taking away from, courts, jurisdiction  to  entertain  cases.  This  decision  of  the Constitution  Bench  clearly  negatives  the  claim  of  the appellant  that   the  impugned  Act  was  ultra  vires  the jurisdiction of  the West Bengal Legislature. Admittedly the Act  received   Presidential  assent   and  was,  therefore, competent to bring about a change in the prevailing position obtaining under  the Letters  Patent of  the  Calcutta  High Court.      A similar  challenge as in the present dispute had also been raised  before the  Calcutta High  Court in the case of Amarendra Nath Roy Chowdhury v. Bikash Chandra Ghose & Anr., AIR 1957  Calcutta 534 and a learned single Judge relying on the decision of the Constitution Bench referred to above had held that  the Act was intra vires the State legislature. We are of  the view that the decision of the Constitution Bench is a  clear and  binding precedent  against the  appellant’s stand. 552      The appeal  has no  merit and is, therefore. dismissed. There will be no order as cost in this Court. S.R.                                       Appeal dismissed. 553