RASHTRIYA CHINI MILLS ADHIKARI PARISHAD, LUCKNOW versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 733 · Decided: 02-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~-
RASHTRIYA CHIN! MILLS ADHIKARI PARISHAD, LUCKNOW 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 
JULY 2, 1995 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Constitution of btdic~Article 226(2)-Higlt Court (Amalgamation) 
Order, 1948-Clause 14 proviso-Territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow 
Bench-'' In respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh ''-Meaning . C 
of-Cause of action-W/1ether relevant-Civil Procedure Code 1908--Section 
141 F.xplanatioit-Effect of 
By a Government order dated 4.2.1956 read with Oudh Civil Courts 
Act, 1879, twelve districts were brought under the jurisdiction of the Court 
of the Judicial Commissioner Oudh at Lucknow. In 1925, the Chief Court D 
of Oudb was established replacing the Court of the Judicial Commis· 
sloner. In 1948, the High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 was made by 
the Governor General, amalgamating the High Court in Allahabad and the 
Chief Court in Oudh with effect from 26.7.1948. Clause 14 of the said High 
Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 provided for the place or sitting of the 
Judges of the High Court. The first proviso to clause 14 provided that E 
unless the Governor of the United Provinces with the concurrence of the 
Chief Justice otherwise directs, atleast two of the Judges of the High Court 
shall sit at Lucknow in order to exerdse the jurisdiction and power of the 
High Court "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" as the Chief 
Justice may direct. 
F 
The phrase "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh' as 
appearing in clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order of 1948 was interpreted 
by this Court in the case of Nasiruddin v. STA Trib1mal, AIR (1976) SC 
333 where in this Court held that jurisdiction of the Bench would depend 
upon the place where the cause ofaction arose. This Court held that if the G 
cause of action arose wholly within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow 
Bench shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the matter. However, 
ir the cause of action arose partly within the specified Oudh areas and 
partly outside the area, it would be open to the litigant to choose the Bench 
of his convenience. While deciding the aforesaid case, this Court did not H 
733 
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
refer to or notice the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
B 
c 
The petitioner, who are aggrieved by an order of the Government of 
Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow to sell six sugar factories, challenged the order 
of the Government by way of a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of 
Allahabad High Court. Out of the six factories sought to be sold by the 
impugned order of the Government, only one factory was located within 
the Ondh area. A Division Bench of the High Court by its .iudgment and 
order dated 23.9.1994 held that the Lucknow Bench had no jurisdiction to 
entertain the writ petition. The Division Bench distinguished the phrase 
"cause of action" from "exercise of jurisdiction revolving on the place of 
sitting" and held that "cause of action" would apply only in cases of 
controversies. pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction of two different 
High Courts whereas in cases where the controversy pertains to the 
exercise of jurisdiction of one High Court, "exercise of jurisdiction revolv-
ing on the place of sitting" comes into play. The Division Bench further 
held that the interpretation given~~o clause 14 of the Amalgamation order 
D of 1948 in Nasimddi11's case had ceaSJ,d to be operative after 1.2.1977 when 
the explanation to Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure came into 
force and Sections 15 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure were made 
E 
F 
inapplicable to writ jurisdiction. 
Against the judgment and order of the Division Bench, the petitioner 
preferred a Special Leave Petition before this Court. In the meanwhile, the 
same question of law was considered by a Full Bench of the High Court 
of Allahabad and by its judgment and order dated 15.11.1994, the Full 
Bench overruled the judgment and order of the Division Bench on the 
ground that it was contrary to the judgment of this Court in Nasi1uddi11's 
case. As the impugned judgment of the Division Bench had already been 
overruled by the Full Bench this Court, on 2.12.1994 disposed of the 
Special Leave Petition as infructuous. 
As the Registry of the High Court was being asked to comply with 
G the "General Directions" given by the Division Bench, the High Court filed 
an interlocutory application before this Court in the a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.