JAMSHED N. GUZDAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 223 · Decided: 11-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

f ' 
JAMSHED N. GUZDAR 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 11, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, B.N. 
B 
SRIKRISHNA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 2, 3, 4, 14, 19, 132, 134, 136, 216, 
217, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 230 and 246(2); Entries 77, 78, 79 and C 
95 of List I, Entry 3 of List II, Entries II-A, 13, 46 and 65 of list-Ill/Bombay 
City Civil Court Act, 1948/lelters Patent (Amendment) Act, 1948/Maharashtra 
Civil Court (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Amendment) Act, 
1977/Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes 
(Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction & Amendment) Act, 1986/Maharashtra 
High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of D 
letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986/Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (letters 
Patent Appeal Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981: 
,. 
Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes 
(Enhancement of Pecuinary Jurisdiction & Amendment) Act, 1987-
Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and E 
Abolition of letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986 -Constitutionality of-Held: 
By way of amendment in the Acts, disparity in pecuniary jurisdiction removed 
by conferring unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction on the City Civil Court at par 
with other Civil Courts in other parts of the State of Maharashtra-Po, ;er of 
legislature to confer or take away general jurisdiction of the Courts, other F 
than Supreme Court, forms part of the administration of justice and not forming 
">· 
part of the Constitution and organizations of High Courts-State legislature 
could confer general jurisdiction on all Courts in terms of Entries 3, 11-A and 
46 of the Concurrent List-Jurisdiction and powers of High Court dealt 
separately under Entry I 1-A purportedly for bifurcation of legislative powers 
possessed by the Centre and the State legislature-But the subject Constitution G 
and Organization of Supreme Court and High Courts rests with the Union in 
the Scheme of the Constitution-It cannot be said that Parliament alone has 
,"'t 
the exclusive competence to invest the High Courts with General Jurisdiction 
referable to Constitution and Organizations of High Courts-Investing the 
223 
H 
224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R .. 
A City Civil Courts with unlimited jurisdiction in terms of amending Acts by the 
State does not amount to dealing with the subject Constitution and Organization 
of the High Courts-Hence constitutional validity of hath the Acts, 1986 and 
1987 Act, upheld. 
Madlry11 Pr11desll (Ucllclr11 Ny11y11ly11 Letters P11te11t Appe11ls S11mapti) 
B Adlri11iy11m, 1981-Constitutionality of-Held: Since State Legislature 
competent to pass law relating to general jurisdiction of High Courts dealing 
with administration of justice, Adhiniyam cannot be declared unconstitutional/ 
invalid-Hence, constitutional validity of the Adhiniyam upheld-Interpretation 
of Statutes. 
c 
E11try 13 of List-I/I-Scope of-Held: In the mailer of Civil Procedure 
the Parliament and the State legislature acquire the concurrent Legislative 
competence. 
E11try 3 of List-II/ before amendmen vis-a-·vis Entry 11 of list-III after 
D amendment rlw Enlly 65 of list-II-Implication of-Held: Administration of 
justice is a State subject-General Jurisdiction includes jurisdiction and powers 
of all Courts including High Courts for administration of justice, such power 
rests with the Stale. 
Emry I I-A, List-Ill-Use of Semicolon after 'administration of justice'-
E Signification of-Discussed. 
'Admi11istr11tio11 of Justice' vis-a-vis 'General Jurisdiction '-Relation 
between-Discussed. 
Absence of provision for right lo appeal in a Statute-Effect of-
F Discussed. 
Words 1111d Pl1r11ses: 
'Constitution', 'organization' and 'administration of justice '-Meaning 
of 
G 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of 'pith and substance '-Applicability of 
The questions which arose for determin:iltion in these appeals were 
H as to whether the Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small 
.l.N. GUZDAR v. STATE 
225 
Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction & Amendment) Act, 1986 A 
(1987 Act), which already received assent of the President, Maharashtra 
High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition 
of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986 (1986 Act), which also received the 
assent of the President were constitutionally valid, and as to whether the 
Full Bench of the High Court o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.