STATE OF BOMBAY versus NAROTHAMDAS JETHABAI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1951] 1 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 20-12-1950 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
51 
Orders passed by the Governor-General of India under 
the Indian Independence Act has still to be decided, 
I refrain from expressing any opinion on this point. 
In the result, the appeal, in my opinion, should be 
allowed and I concur in the order which has been made 
by my learned brother Patanjali Sastri, J. 
Appeal allowed . 
.Agent for the Appellant : R. R. Biswas. 
Agent for the Respondent : P. K. Bose. 
Agent for the Intervener: P. A. Mehta. 
STATE OF BOMBAY 
"· 
NAROTHAMDASJETIIABAIAND 
-
ANOTIIER 
(SAIYID FAZL Au, PATANJALI SAsTRI, MEHR CHAND 
MAHAJAN, MuKHERJEA and DAs JJ.J 
Bombay City Civil Court Act (XL of 1948)-Provi11cial Act 
constituting City Civil Court to try suits of civil nature of value up 
to Rs, 10,000-Provision empowering Provincial GQl/ernmmt to 
invest court with jurisdiction up to Rs. 25,000-Validity of Act-
Power of Provincial Legislature to make laws relating to ju•isdic· 
tion of courts-Delegation of legislative powers-Condition11l lr:gis· 
lation-Governmetit of India Act, 1935, Seventh Schedule, List I, 
items 28 & 53; List II, items 1 & 2; List Ill, items 15-Powei· to 
make laws as to 'Administration 
of /ustice" 
and "Constitution 
and organisation of courts", whether includes power to define 
"/urisdiction and powers" of courts-Interpretatio11 of Lists-Re-
ference to legislative practice-Doctrine of pith and substance. 
The Bombay City Civil Court Act of 1948, an Act passed by 
the Provincial Legislature of Bombay, provided by s. 3 that the 
Provincial 
Government may, 
by 
notification 
in 
the 
official 
Gazette, establish for the Greater Bombay a court to be called the 
, Bombay 
City 
Ci,·il 
Court, and that this court shall, notwith-
standing anything contained in any law, have jurisdiction to re-
ceive, try and dispose of all suits and other proceedings of a civil 
nature not exceeding Rs. 10,000 in value arising 
within Greater 
Bombay except certain kinds of suits which were specified in the 
tection. Section 4 of the Act provided that subject to the excep-: 
tions :specified in s. 3 the Provincial Government may, by notifica-, 
1950 
Th• State of 
Trip11ra 
v. 
Tiie ProviHce oj 
Eayt Bengal 
1950 
Dec. 20 
1950 
State of Bombay 
•• 
Narothamda.r 
Jethabai and 
Anot~r. 
52 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1951] 
tion in the official Gazette, invest the City Civil Court with juris-
diction to receive, try and dispose of all suits and other 
proceeJ-
ings of a civil nature arising within the Greater Bombay and of 
such value not exceeding Rs. 25,000 as may be specified in the 
notification. Section 12 barred the jurisdiction of the 
Bombay 
High Court to try suits and proceedings cognizable by the City 
Civil Court. In exercise of the powers conferred by s. 4 the Pro-
vincial Government invested the City Civil Court with jurisdiction 
to rcccivCt try and dispose of all suits and proceedings of a ch il 
nature not exceeding Rs. 25,000 in value. 
The first respondent 
instituted a suit in the High Court of Bombay for recovery of 
Rs. 11,704 on the basis of a promissory note, contending that the 
PrOYincial Legislature had no power to make laws with respect to 
jurisdiction of courts in regard to suits on promissory notes which 
was, a matter covered by item 53 of List I, and the Bombay City 
Civil Court Act of 1948 was therefore ult1·a vires. 
It was further 
contended on his behalf that in any event s. 4 of the Act was in-
valid as it involved a delegation of legislative powers to the Pro-
vincial Government and that 
the 
suit was therefore cognisahle 
by the High Court. 
Held by tne Full Court.-(i) that the impunged Act was a 
law with respect to a matter enumerated in List II and was not 
ultra vires; (ii) that as the legislature had exercised its judgn1cnt 
and determined that the Citv Civil Courts should be invested 
with 
pecuniary jurisdiction up to ·Rs. 25,000 and all that was left to the 
discretion of the Provincial Government \Vas the 
determination 
of the conditions under which the court should be invested with 
the enhanced jurisdiction, s. 4 did not involve any delegation of 
legislative -powers but was only an instance of conditional legis-
lation and was not ultra vi1·es or invalid on this ground; (iii) inas-
much as the impunged Act was in pith and substance a law with 
respect to a matter covered by List II, the fact that it incidental-
ly affected suits relating to promissory notes (a subject falling 
within items 28 and 53 of L

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