IRIDIUM INDIA TELECOM LTD. versus MOTOROLA INC.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 05-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
-
IRIDIUM INDIA TELECOM LTD. 
v. 
MOTOROLA INC. 
JANUARY 5, 2005 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended in 2001)-Section 129; 
Letters Patent of 1865-Clause 37-Chartered High Courts-Proceedings on 
A 
B 
the Original Side are governed by Rules made by High Court and not by the C 
Code of Civil Procedure-High Court has discretion to grant extension of 
time for filing written statement without being affected by Order 8 rule 1 of 
amended CPC-The non obs/ante clause used in Section 129 is not merely 
declaratory, but indicative of Parliament's intention to prevent the application 
of the CPC in respect of civil proceedings on the Original Side of the High 
Courts. 
D 
Code of Civil Procedure-Historical development-Discussed 
Doctrine of stare decisis-Explained 
The appellant company sued respondent company on the Original 
side of the High Court for damages of Rs.I 000 crores. The summons were E 
served on the respondent on 9.4.2003. Respondent applied for extension 
of time to file written statement on 2.5.2003. Single Judge held that 
respondent has 90 days to file written statement by 8.7.2003 and so 
extension sought is premature. Further time to file written statement was 
granted upto 28. 7.2003 on payment of costs. Appellant filed an appeal to F 
the Division Bench against extension upto 28.7.03 on the ground that in 
view of the amendment of CPC does not allow any extension of time after 
90 days. Division Bench held that matter is governed by Original side Rules 
and not by amended provisions of Order 8, Rule I CPC. 
In appeal to this court, appellant contended that the power of the G 
High Court to frame rules governing the procedure on its Original Side 
is a delegated legislative power, and can in no event override or be 
independent of the parent legislation, namely, the CPC; that Parliament 
has, by prescription of rules in the First Schedule to the CPC, declared 
that the said rules would have the same status as if enacted in the body of 
73 
H 
74 
SUPREME' COURT REPORTS 
(2005] I S.C.R. 
A the Code itself and that Section 129 CPC does not invest any independent 
power in the High Courts to make rules, but must be read harmoniously 
with the High Courts power under Section 122 CPC, if not as subordinate 
and subject thereto. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. CPC has been amended from time to time in order to 
meet with the changing situations. The historical developments as to the 
application of the CPC to the proceedings in the Chartered High Courts 
are illuminating. Prior to the establishing of the Chartered High Courts 
by the British Government in 1862, the Civil Courts in the Presidency of 
C Bombay were governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1859. This Act, 
as its preamble suggests, was "an Act for simplifying the procedure of the 
Courts of Civil Judicature not est&blished by Royal Charter" and was not 
intended to apply to High Courts established by Royal Charter. Clause 
37 of the Letters Patent was intended to extend to the High Courts the 
D Code of Civil Procedure enacted by the Legislature of India for the Courts 
other than the Courts established by the Royal Charter. The intention was 
to substitute one simple Code of Procedure for the various systems which 
had been in operation in the Supreme Court since the date of its 
establishment. Clause 37 empowers the High Court to make rules and 
orders on its Original Side, is subject to the proviso "that the said High 
E Court shall be guided in making such rules and orders as far as possible, 
by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure." The words "as far as 
possible" are words of limitation and must be interpreted to mean that 
the rules made should be consistent with the provisions of the CPC as 
amended from time to time. [81-E, F-G; 82-D; 91-C, G[ 
F 
1.2. The Legislature recognized. the special role assigned to the 
Chartered High Courts and exempted them from the application of several 
provisions of the Code in the exercise of their ordinary or extra-ordinary 
civil jurisdiction for the simple reason that those jurisdictions were 
governed by the procedure prescribed by the rules made in exercise of 
G the powers of the Chartered High Courts under clause 37 of the Letters 
Patent. Interestingly, Section 652 of this Act itself empowered the High 
Courts to make rules "consistent with this Code to regulate any matter 
connected with the procedure of the Court

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.