Leading judgment of justice Chagla on jurisdiction of bench of HC and principal seat of HC to decide particular matter
In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan, reported in AIR
1983 SC 46 three Judges of the Apex Court in paragraph 26 relied on the ratio
of the decision rendered by Chagla, C.J. at the Bombay High Court. It would
be appropriate to quote paragraph 26 in its entirety, which reads thus :
“26.As to the scope and effect of subs. (3) of s. 51 of the Act,
the question came up for consideration before Chagla, C.J. and
Badkas, J. in Seth Manji Dana v. Commissioner of Incometax,
Bombay, Civil Appeal No.995 of 1957(Bom), decided on July
22, 1958. This was an application by which the validity of
Rule 254 of the Appellate Side Rules was challenged insofar as
it provided that all incometax references presented at Nagpur
should be heard at the principal seat of the High Court at
Bombay, and the contention was that the result of this rule
was that it excluded incometax references from the
jurisdiction of the High Court functioning at Nagpur. In
repelling the contention, Chagla, C. J. observed :
"Legally, the position is quite clear. Under section 51 (3)
of the States Reorganization Act, the Judges sitting at Nagpur
constitute a part of the High Court of Bombay. They are as
much a part of the High Court of Bombay, and if we might say
so distinguished part of the High Court of Bombay, as if they
were sitting under the same roof under which Judges function
in Bombay. All that happens is that the Chief Justice, under
the powers given to him under the Letters Patent distributes
the work to various Judges and various Divisional Benches,
and acting under that power he distributes certain work to the
Judges sitting at Nagpur."
He then continued:
"All that rule 254 does is to permit as a matter of convenience
certain matters to be presented at Nagpur to the Deputy
Registrar. If rule 254 had not been enacted, all matters would
have to be presented at Bombay and then the Chief Justice
would have distributed those matters to different Judges,
whether sitting in Bombay or at Nagpur. It is out of regard and
consideration for the people of Vidarbha and for their
convenience that this rule is enacted, so that litigants should
not be put to the inconvenience of going to Bombay to present
certain matters. Therefore, this particular rule has nothing
whatever to do either with section 51 (3) of the States
Reorganisation Act or with the Constitution." With regard to
Rule 254, he went on to say :
"Now, having disposed of the legal aspect of the matter, we turn
to the practical aspect, and let us consider whether this rule
inconveniences the people at Nagpur. If it does, it would certain
call for an amendment of that rule. Now, there is particular
reason why all Income Tax References should be heard in
Bombay and that reason is this. The High Court of Bombay for
He then concluded :
many years, rightly or wrongly, has followed a particular
policy with regard to Income Tax References and that policy is
that the same Bench should hear Income Tax References, so
that there should be a continuity with regard to the decisions
given on these References. I know that other High Courts have
referred to this policy with praise because they have realised
that the result of this policy has been that Income Tax Law has
been laid down in a manner which has received commendation
from various sources. The other reason is and we hope we are
not mistaken in saying so that the number of Income Tax
References from Nagpur are very few. If the number was large,
undoubtedly a very strong case would be made out for these
cases to be heard at Nagpur."
"After all, Courts exist for the convenience of the litigants and
not in order to maintain any particular system of law or any
particular system of administration. Whenever a Court finds
that a particular rule does not serve the convenience of
litigants, the Court should be always prepared to change the
rule."
The ratio to be deduced from the decision of Chagla, C. J. is
that the Judges and Division Courts sitting at Nagpur were
functioning as if they were the Judges and Division Courts of
the High Court at Bombay.”
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.341 OF 2013.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Mrs. Sayali wife of Swapnil Kuber,
// VERSUS //
Swapnil S/o. Harischandra Kuber,
CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 19, 2013.
Citation; 2014(5) ALLMR97
https://www.lawweb.in/2014/09/leadding-judgment-of-justice-chagla-on.html
