You are on page 1of 31

LegalCrystal - Indian Law Search Engine - www.legalcrystal.com State of Bombay Vs. Narothamdas Jethabai and Anr.

Court :Supreme Citations :AIR1951SC 9! "1951#5$B%&'R()*! +1951,*SCR51 Jud-e : &u.er/ea0! &ehr Chand &aha/an0! 1atan/a2i Sastri0! 3ass and! Saiyid 4a5a2 A2i0 JJ 3e6ided %n :195)71*7*) A6ts :Code of Ci8i2 1ro6edure "C1C#0 19)9 7 Se6tions 9 Appe22ant :State of Bombay Respondent : Narothamdas Jethabai and Anr. Jud-ement: 4a52 A2i0 J. 1. I ha8e read the /ud-ment prepared by my brother0 &aha/an J.0 and -enera22y a-ree :ith his 6on62usions and reasonin-s0 but0 ha8in- re-ard to the importan6e of the points raised0 I :ish to add a short /ud-ment of my o:n. *. ;here are rea22y three <uestions to be de6ided in this appea20 and they are as fo22o:s : "1# =hether the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t0 19(9 "A6t >' of 19(9#0 is u2tra 8ires the 'e-is2ature of the State of Bombay! "*# =hether in any e8ent Se6tion ( of the abo8e A6t is u2tra 8ires the State 'e-is2ature! and "$# =hether the Bombay ?i-h Court has /urisdi6tion to try the suit. $. ;he first and the third <uestions ha8e been ans:ered by the ?i-h Court in fa8our of the appe22ant0 and the se6ond <uestion has been ans:ered in fa8our of the respondents. In this Court0 the appe22ant atta6.ed the /ud-ment of the ?i-h Court in so far as it 6on6erns the se6ond <uestion0 :hereas the first respondent atta6.ed it in so far as it 6on6erns the first and the third <uestions. (. ;he Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t purports to 6reate an additiona2 6i8i2 6ourt for @reater Bombay ha8in- /urisdi6tion to try0 re6ei8e and dispose of a22 suits and other pro6eedin-s of a 6i8i2 nature not eA6eedin- a 6ertain 8a2ue0 sub/e6t to 6ertain eA6eptions :hi6h need not be referred to here. It :as 6ontended on beha2f of the respondents that the A6t is u2tra 8ires the 'e-is2ature of the State of Bombay0 be6ause it 6onfers /urisdi6tion on the ne: 6ourt not on2y in respe6t of matters :hi6h the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature is 6ompetent to 2e-is2ate upon under 'ist II of the Bth S6hedu2e to the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$50 but a2so in re-ard to matters in respe6t of :hi6h on2y the Centra2 or 4edera2 'e-is2ature 6an 2e-is2ate under 'ist I "su6h as0 for instan6e0 promissory notes0 :hi6h is one of the sub/e6ts mentioned in entry *9 of 'ist I#. ;o understand this ar-ument0 it is ne6essary to refer to entry 5$ of 'ist I0 entries 1 and * of 'ist II and a2so entry 15 of 'ist III. ;hese entries run as fo22o:s :7 5. Cntry 5$0 'ist I :7 DJurisdi6tion and po:ers of a22 6ourts eA6ept the 4edera2 Court0 :ith respe6t to any of the matters in this 'ist......D

. Cntries 1 and *0 'ist II :7 D1....... the administration of /usti6e! 6onstitution and or-anisation of a22 6ourts eA6ept the 4edera2 Court......D D*. Jurisdi6tion and po:ers of a22 6ourts eA6ept the 4edera2 Court0 :ith respe6t to any of the matters in this 'ist.....D B. Cntry 150 'ist III :7 DJurisdi6tion and po:ers of a22 6ourts eA6ept the 4edera2 Court0 :ith respe6t to any of the matters in this 'ist.D 9. ;he respondentsD 6ontention may appear at the first si-ht to be a p2ausib2e one0 but0 in my opinion0 it is not :e22 founded in 2a:. 4or the purpose of 6orre6t2y de6idin- the <uestion raised0 :e must first try to understand the meanin- of the fo22o:in- items in entry 1 of 'ist II0 Dadministration of /usti6e0 6onstitution and or-ani5ation of a22 6ourts eA6ept the 4edera2 Court.D A referen6e to three 'e-is2ati8e 'ists sho:s that Da administration of /usti6eD is entire2y a pro8in6ia2 sub/e6t on :hi6h on2y the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6an 2e-is2ate. ;he same remar. app2ies to D6onstitution and or-ani5ation of a22 6ourts eA6ept the 4edera2 CourtD. ;he eApression Dadministration of /usti6eD has a :ide meanin-0 and in62udes administration of 6i8i2 as :e22 as 6rimina2 /usti6e0 and in my opinion entry 1 in 'ist II0 :hi6h I ha8e <uoted0 is a 6omp2ete and se2f 6ontained entry. In this entry0 no referen6e is made to the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts0 be6ause the eApressions Dadministration of /usti6eD and D6onstitution and or-ani5ation of 6ourtsD0 :hi6h ha8e been used therein :ithout any <ua2ifi6ation or 2imitation0 are :ide enou-h to in62ude the po:er and /urisdi6tion of 6ourts0 for ho: 6an /usti6e be administered if 6ourts ha8e no po:er and /urisdi6tion to administer it0 and ho: 6an 6ourts fun6tion :ithout any po:er or /urisdi6tion. %n6e this fa6t is 62ear2y -rasped0 it fo22o:s that0 by 8irtue of the :ords used in entry 1 of 'ist II0 the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6an in8est the 6ourts 6onstituted by it :ith po:er and /urisdi6tion try e8ery 6ause or matter that 6an be dea2t :ith by a 6ourt of 6i8i2 or 6rimina2 /urisdi6tion0 and that the eApression Dadministration of /usti6eD must ne6essari2y in62ude the po:er to try suits and pro6eedin-s of a 6i8i2 as :e22 as 6rimina2 nature0 irrespe6ti8e of :ho the parties to the suit or pro6eedin- or :hat is sub/e6t7matter may be. ;his po:er must ne6essari2y in62ude the po:er of definin-0 en2ar-in-0 a2terin-0 amendin- and diminishin- the /urisdi6tion of the 6ourts and definin- their /urisdi6tion territoria22y and pe6uniari2y. 9. ;he <uestion then arises as to the eAa6t meanin- of entry * of 'ist II and entry 5$ of 'ist I0 :hi6h are said to mi2itate a-ainst the abo8e 6onstru6tion. ;hese entries0 in my opinion0 6onfer spe6ia2 po:ers on 1ro8in6ia2 and Centra2 'e-is2atures0 as opposed to the -enera2 po:er 6onferred on the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature by entry 1 of 'ist II0 the spe6ia2 po:ers bein- the 2o-i6a2 6onse<uen6e or 6on6omitant of the po:er of the t:o 'e-is2atures to 2e-is2ate :ith re-ard to the matters in62uded in their respe6ti8e 'e-is2ati8e 'ists. ;he effe6t of these entries is that :hi2e 2e-is2atin- :ith re-ard to the matters in their respe6ti8e 'e-is2ati8e 'ists0 the t:o 'e-is2atures are 6ompetent a2so to ma.e pro8isions in the se8era2 A6ts ena6ted by them0 6on6ernin- the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts in re-ard to the sub/e6t7matter of the A6ts0 be6ause other:ise the 2e-is2ation may not be <uite 6omp2ete or effe6ti8e. ;he :ords used in entry * of 'ist II and entry 5$ of 'ist I are :ide enou-h to empo:er the t:o 'e-is2atures to 2e-is2ate ne-ati8e2y as :e22 as affirmati8e2y :ith re-ard to the /urisdi6tion of the 6ourts in respe6t of the matters :ithin their respe6ti8e 2e-is2ati8e ambits. In other :ords0 they 6an eA62ude or bar the /urisdi6tion of the 6ourts in re-ard to those matters0 and they 6an a2so 6onfer spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion on 6ertain 6ourts. ;hey 6an a2so0 apart from the -enera2 po:er :hi6h the 6ourts usua22y eAer6ise0 6onfer po:er on the 6ourts to pass 6ertain spe6ia2 orders0 instan6es of :hi6h I sha22 -i8e 2ater. In this 6onne6tion0 referen6e may be made to Se6tion 9 of the Code of Ci8i2 1ro6edure0 :hi6h pro8ides that 7 Dthe Courts sha22 ha8e /urisdi6tion to try a22 suits of a 6i8i2 nature eA6eptin- suits of :hi6h their 6o-ni5an6e is either eApress2y or imp2ied2y barred.D 1). ;his se6tion ob8ious2y postu2ates amon- other thin-s the barrin- of the /urisdi6tion of the 6i8i2 6ourts by 'e-is2atures :ith respe6t to parti6u2ar 62asses of suits of a 6i8i2 nature0 and the statute7boo. abounds in

instan6es in :hi6h the /urisdi6tion of the 6i8i2 6ourts is barred under A6ts passed by the Centra2 and 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2atures. ;here are a2so many A6ts pro8idin- that any suit or pro6eedin- 6on6ernin- the sub/e6ts matters of those A6ts sha22 be triab2e by the 6ourt or 6ourts spe6ified therein. Su6h pro8isions are to be found in a number of A6ts ena6ted both prior to and after the ena6tment of the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$50 and there 6an be no doubt that the British 1ar2iament :hi2e ena6tin- that A6t :as fu22y a:are of the eAistin- 2e-is2ati8e pra6ti6e obtainin- in this 6ountry as :e22 as of the fa6t that the pro8isions in <uestion :ere sometimes ne6essary and therefore it empo:ered the Centra2 and 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2atures to ma.e them under entry 5$ of 'ist I and entry * of 'ist II0 respe6ti8e2y. ;his0 in my opinion0 is the true meanin- of these entries0 and it a2so eAp2ains :hy a separate entry :as ne6essary enab2in- the t:o 'e-is2atures to 2e-is2ate :ith re-ard to the po:er and /urisdi6tion of the 6ourts in respe6t of the sub/e6t7matters mentioned in the three 'e-is2ati8e 'ists. But for an eApress pro8ision 2i.e that made in the entries referred to abo8e0 the t:o 'e-is2atures mi-ht not ha8e been ab2e to 6onfer spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion on the 6ourts in re-ard to the matters set out in the 'e-is2ati8e 'ists0 nor 6ou2d they ha8e been ab2e to bar the /urisdi6tion of the ordinary 6ourts in re-ard to them0 ho:e8er ne6essary or desirab2e su6h a 6ourse mi-ht ha8e appeared to them. 11. It shou2d be noted that the :ords used in these entries are : D/urisdi6tion and po:erD. D1o:erD is a 6omprehensi8e :ord0 :hi6h in62udes a22 the pro6edura2 and substanti8e po:ers :hi6h may be eAer6ised by a 6ourt0 but the fu22 si-nifi6an6e of the use of the :ord in the 6onteAt 6an be -rasped on2y by readin- a 2ar-e number of 2o6a2 and spe6ia2 A6ts in :hi6h po:er has been -i8en to Courts to pass 6ertain spe6ia2 and unusua2 orders. 4or eAamp2e0 Se6tion 1$ of the Indian Air6raft A6t0 19$(0 pro8ides that 7 D:here any person is 6on8i6ted of an offen6e punishab2e under any ru2e made under 62auses...... the Court by :hi6h he is 6on8i6ted may dire6t that the air6raft or arti62e or substan6e0 as the 6ase may be0 in respe6t of :hi6h the offen6e has been 6ommitted0 sha22 be forfeited to ?is &a/esty.D 1*. Referen6e may a2so be made to Se6tion *( of the Indian Arms A6t0 19B90 :hi6h pro8ides that 7 D:hen any person is 6on8i6ted of an offen6e punishab2e under this A6t0 6ommitted by him in respe6t of any arms0 ammunition or mi2itary stores0 it sha22 be in the dis6retion of the 6on8i6tin- Court or &a-istrate further to dire6t that the :ho2e or any portion of su6h arms0 ammunition or mi2itary stores0 and any 8esse2........... sha22 be 6onfis6ated.D 1$. "See a2so Se6tion 1) of the Centra2 CA6ises and Sa2t A6t0 19(( +A6t I of 19((,0 and Se6tion 1$ of the 4ood Adu2teration A6t0 1919 +Ben-a2 A6t VI of 1919,0 :hi6h are in simi2ar terms0 and the 8arious A6ts re2atin- to money72enders and money72endin- :hi6h 6onfer spe6ia2 po:er on the 6ourts of reopeninse8era2 .inds of transa6tions for the re2ief of debtors.# 1(. It seems to me that the :ord Dpo:erD :as added to the :ord D/urisdi6tionD0 in entry 5$ of 'ist I0 entry * of 'ist II0 and entry 15 of 'ist III0 in order to enab2e the t:o 'e-is2atures to -rant spe6ia2 po:ers 2i.e those I ha8e mentioned to the 6ourts :hi6h are to dea2 :ith the sub/e6t7matter of any spe6ia2 2e-is2ation. 15. A referen6e to the A6ts passed after the ena6tment of the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$50 :i22 sho: that spe6ia2 pro8isions :ith re-ard to the /urisdi6tion of 6ourts ha8e been made e8en after the passin- of that A6t0 in a 2ar-e number of Centra2 and 2o6a2 A6ts. Confinin- ourse28es to the A6ts passed by the Bombay 'e-is2ature0 sin6e :e are 6on6erned here :ith one of su6h A6ts0 :e find that in ;he Bombay 1robation of %ffenders A6t0 19$9 "Bombay A6t No. >I> of 19$9#0 Se6tion $ empo:ers the fo22o:in6ourts Dto eAer6ise po:ers under the A6t0 7 "a# the ?i-h Court0 "b# a Court of Session0 "6# a 3istri6t &a-istrate0 "d# a Sub73i8isiona2 &a-istrate0 "e# a sa2aried &a-istrate.......D Simi2ar2y0 in ;he Bombay A-ri6u2tura2 1rodu6e &ar.ets A6t0 19$90 Se6tion *$ pro8ides that Dno offen6e under this A6t.... sha22 be tried by a Court other than that of a 1residen6y &a-istrate0 or a &a-istrate of the 4irst C2ass or a &a-istrate of the Se6ond C2ass spe6ia22y empo:ered in this beha2f.D Se6tion 11 of the Bombay Cotton Contro2 A6t0 19(*0 pro8ides that Dno 6rimina2 6ourt inferior to that of a 1residen6y &a-istrate or a &a-istrate of the Se6ond C2ass sha22 try any offen6e under this A6tD. Se6tion 19 of the Bombay Sa2es of &otor Spirit ;aAation A6t0 19( 0 and Se6tion 5 of the Bombay ?ari/an ;emp2e Cntry A6t0 19(B0 are pro8isions :hi6h eA62ude the /urisdi6tion of 6ourts under 6ertain 6ir6umstan6es. Simi2ar instan6es may be

mu2tip2ied from the A6ts of the Centra2 'e-is2ature and other 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2atures0 but0 in my opinion0 the instan6es I ha8e <uoted are suffi6ient to sho: "1# that the pra6ti6e :hi6h pre8ai2ed before the @o8ernment of India A6t has 6ontinued e8en after its ena6tment0 and "*# that the :ords D/urisdi6tion and po:ersD ha8e been 6onsistent2y 6onstrued to bear the meanin- :hi6h I ha8e attributed to them. 1 . ;he interpretation :hi6h is sou-ht to be put on the entries by the respondent is in my opinion open to the fo22o:in- ob/e6tions : 7 "1# It in8o28es the 6urtai2ment of the meanin- of the eApression Dadministration of /usti6eD in su6h a :ay as to rob it of its primary 6ontent 7 the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of the 6ourt0 :ithout :hi6h /usti6e 6annot be administered. "*# It ma.es it ne6essary to read entry * of 'ist II as part of entry 1 of the same 'ist0 thou-h it has been separate2y numbered as an independent entry. ;his is opposed to the s6heme fo22o:ed in the three 'e-is2ati8e 'ists0 :hi6h seems to be that ea6h parti6u2ar entry shou2d re2ate to a separate sub/e6t or -roup of 6o-nate sub/e6ts0 ea6h sub/e6t or -roup of sub/e6ts bein- independent of the others "sub/e6t on2y to in6identa2 o8er2appin-#. ;he 6onstru6tion su--ested by the respondents ma.es it ne6essary to assume that thou-h a66ordin- to their 2ine of reasonin- the :ords D/urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts0 et6.D o66urrin- in entry * of 'ist II shou2d ha8e been put in entry 1 of the same 'ist0 bein- intimate2y 6onne6ted :ith the sub/e6t of Dadministration of /usti6e and the 6onstitution and or-ani5ation of 6ourtsD0 it :as :ithout any apparent reason numbered separate2y and made an independent entry. "$# ;he su--ested 6onstru6tion :ou2d eA62ude from the /urisdi6tion of the 1ro8in6ia2 Courts a 2ar-e number of matters :hi6h norma22y 6ome before 6ourts eAer6isin- 6i8i2 or 6rimina2 /urisdi6tion and0 if it is a66epted0 the 6ourts :i22 not be ab2e to fun6tion in the fu22est sense un2ess both the 1ro8in6ia2 and Centra2 'e-is2atures ha8e by pie6emea2 2e-is2ation or other:ise eAhausted their po:er of 2e-is2atin- on a22 the sub/e6ts 6omprised in 'ists II and I respe6ti8e2y. C8en after they ha8e eAhausted su6h po:er0 the 6ourts :i22 not be ab2e to dea2 :ith important matters0 su6h as 6ontra6ts0 transfer of property0 arbitration0 :i22s and su66ession0 6rimina2 2a:0 et6.0 :hi6h are sub/e6ts mentioned in 'ist III0 unti2 one of the t:o 'e-is2atures has 2e-is2ated in re-ard to those sub/e6ts0 :hi6h raises t:o important <uestions :7 "1# =hi6h of the t:o 'e-is2atures has to do it first! and "*# ?o: is the 6onf2i6t to be a8oided E 1B. ;hat the 6onstru6tion put by the respondents :i22 2ead to anoma2ous resu2ts :hi6h 6ou2d not ha8e been :ithin the 6ontemp2ation of the British 1ar2iament :hi2e ena6tin- the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$50 may be i22ustrated by one or t:o eAamp2es. Referen6e mi-ht here be made to entry * of 'ist I0 :hi6h dea2s :ith D6arria-e of passen-ers and -oods by sea or by air.D It shou2d be supposed that if any of the -oods 6arried by air are 2ost and a suit is instituted in re-ard to them0 the suit :i22 be triab2e by the 6ourt ha8in- /urisdi6tion o8er the matter under the Ci8i2 1ro6edure Code0 sub/e6t to any spe6ia2 2e-is2ation on the sub/e6t by the Centra2 'e-is2ature0 in spite of the fa6t that the 6arria-e of -oods and passen-ers by sea or by air is a sub/e6t mentioned in 'ist I. But0 on the 8ie: propounded before us by the respondent0 the 1ro8in6ia2 6i8i2 6ourts :i22 not be 6ompetent to try su6h a suit0 un2ess they are empo:ered to do so by the Centra2 'e-is2ature. In order to sho: to :hat absurd resu2t this do6trine may be pushed0 and in order to a8oid the 6riti6ism of ta.in- for -ranted :hat is in 6ontro8ersy0 :e may ta.e a 8ery eAtreme eAamp2e0 be6ause the soundness of the respondentsD 6ontention 6an be tested on2y by tryin- to find out :hat :ou2d happen if :e :ere to stret6h it to the utmost 2imit to :hi6h it 6an be stret6hed. Cntry 1$ in 'ist I is : Dthe Banaras ?indu Fni8ersity and the A2i-arh &us2im Fni8ersity.D Fnder entry 5$ of 'ist I0 the Centra2 'e-is2ature has po:er to 2e-is2ate in re-ard to the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts in respe6t of the sub/e6t7matter of entry 1$. It may therefore be supposed0 ha8in- re-ard to the :ide 2an-ua-e used in entry 1$0 that it is open the Centra2 'e-is2ature to ena6t that suits in :hi6h these Fni8ersities are 6on6erned as p2aintiff or as defendant0 :i22 be triab2e on2y by the parti6u2ar 6ourt mentioned in the ena6tment 6on6erned and that no other 6ourt sha22 ha8e /urisdi6tion in re-ard to su6h suits. It is diffi6u2t to thin. that unti2 su6h a 2e-is2ation is made0 a 6ourt :hi6h :ou2d other:ise be the proper 6ourt0 has no /urisdi6tion to try any suit in :hi6h one of these Fni8ersities is a party0 no matter :hat the sub/e6t7matter of the suit may be. I am 6ertain that the framers of the @o8ernment of India A6t did not 6ontemp2ate su6h a resu2t. 19. =e a22 .no: that at the date :hen the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$50 :as passed0 there :ere in

eAisten6e in the different 1ro8in6es a 2ar-e number of 6ourts of 2a: and the administration of /usti6e throu-hout the 1ro8in6es :as in the hands of these pro8in6ia2 6ourts. ;he 6i8i2 6ourts in the 1ro8in6e used to try a22 suits and pro6eedin-s of a 6i8i2 nature :hi6h are triab2e under Se6tion 9 of the Ci8i2 1ro6edure Code0 and the 6rimina2 6ourts used to try a22 6rimina2 6ases :hi6h are triab2e under the Code of Crimina2 1ro6edure. ;he /urisdi6tion and po:er of the 6ourts :ere not 6onfined to 6ases in re-ard to the sub/e6ts stated in 'ist II0 nor :ere they debarred from dea2in- :ith 6ases re2atin- to matters :hi6h ha8e been assi-ned to 'ist I. ;he /urisdi6tion of the 6ourts depended in 6i8i2 6ases on a D6ause of a6tionD -i8in- rise to a 6i8i2 2iabi2ity0 and in 6rimina2 6ases on the 6ommission of an offen6e0 and on the pro8isions made in the t:o Codes of 1ro6edure as to the 8enue of the tria2 and other re2e8ant matters. It seems to me that the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$50 did not 6ontemp2ate any drasti6 6han-e in the eAistin- system of administration of /usti6e0 but :hat it 6ontemp2ated :as that that system shou2d 6ontinue sub/e6t to future 2e-is2ation by the proper 'e-is2ature0 Centra2 or 1ro8in6ia20 barrin- the /urisdi6tion of 6ourts or 6onferrin/urisdi6tion or po:er on spe6ia2 6ourts :ith re-ard to the matters in62uded in the appropriate 'e-is2ati8e 'ists0 shou2d there be any o66asion for su6h spe6ia2 2e-is2ation. Fnder the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$50 e8ery 1ro8in6e be6ame more or 2ess an autonomous unit :ith a 6omp2ete ma6hinery for administerin/usti6e to the fu22est eAtent. In my opinion0 there nothin- in the A6t of 19$5 to sho: that there :as any intention on the part of its framers to affe6t the ma6hinery so drasti6a22y as to 6onfine it to the administration of a mere partia2 or trun6ated .ind of /usti6e re2atin- on2y to matters spe6ified in 'ist II. 19. &r. Seta28ad0 the 2earned Attorney7@enera20 :ho appeared on beha2f of the appe22ant0 in supportinthe impu-ned A6t0 ar-ued before us that for the purpose of de6idin- this appea20 :e mi-ht a2so refer to entry ( of 'ist III. ?is 6ontention :as that the impu-ned A6t ha8in- had the assent of the @o8ernor7@enera20 it :ou2d be permissib2e to see :hat po:ers the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6ou2d eAer6ise under 'ists II and III ta.en to-ether. If the 6ourse :hi6h he su--ests is adopted0 then the sub/e6ts on :hi6h the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6an 2e-is2ate :ou2d be : "1# administration of /usti6e! "*# 6onstitution and or-ani5ation of 6ourts! and "$# 6i8i2 pro6edure0 in62udin- a22 matters in62uded in the Code of Ci8i2 1ro6edure at the date of the passin- of the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$5. %ne of the matters in62uded in the Ci8i2 1ro6edure Code is the /urisdi6tion of 6ourts. Se6tion 9 of the Code pro8ides0 as I ha8e a2ready stated0 that the 6ourts sha22 ha8e /urisdi6tion to try a22 suits of a 6i8i2 nature eA6eptin- suits of :hi6h their 6o-ni5an6e is either eApress2y or imp2ied2y barred. ;here are a2so pro8isions in the Code dea2in- :ith the territoria2 and pe6uniary /urisdi6tion of the 6ourts. ;he three entries :i22 thus 6o8er eAa6t2y the fie2d :hi6h is 6o8ered by item 1( of Se6tion 9* of the Canadian Constitution :hi6h 6omprises the fo22o:in- matters : Dadministration of /usti6e in the 1ro8in6es0 in62udin- 6onstitution0 maintenan6e and or-ani5ation of pro8in6ia2 6ourts both of 6i8i2 and 6rimina2 /urisdi6tion in62udin- pro6edure in 6i8i2 matters in those 6ourts.D It has been he2d in Canada that the :ords referred to abo8e in62ude the po:er and /urisdi6tion of 6ourts0 and0 under that item0 the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6an 6onfer the :idest po:er on the 6ourts. It seems to me that the approa6h su--ested by the 2earned Attorney7@enera2 is usefu2 for testin- :hether entry * of 'ist II :as intended to be treated as the so2e and on2y basis of the po:er of the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to 6onfer /urisdi6tion on the pro8in6ia2 6ourts and :hether it :as rea22y the intention of British 1ar2iament to empo:er the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to 6onfer /urisdi6tion of on2y su6h a 2imited 6hara6ter as 6an be 6onferred on the pro8in6ia2 6ourts under entry * of 'ist II0 if that entry is treated as a se2f7suffi6ient entry. In my opinion0 the 6orre6t 8ie: is to ho2d that it is not ne6essary to 6a22 into aid either entry ( of 'ist III or any of the pro8isions of the Canadian Constitution in this 6ase0 and that the :ords Dadministration of /usti6e! 6onstitution and or-ani5ation of 6ourtsD are by themse28es suffi6ient to empo:er the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to in8est a ne: 6ourt :ith a22 the po:er :hi6h has been 6onferred upon it by the impu-ned A6t. It is of 6ourse open to the Centra2 'e-is2ature to bar the /urisdi6tion of the ne: 6ourt by a spe6ia2 ena6tment :ith re-ard to any of the matters in 'ist I0 but so 2on- as su6h /urisdi6tion is not barred0 be 6ourt :i22 ha8e /urisdi6tion try a22 suits and pro6eedin-s of a 6i8i2 nature as ena6ted in the A6t in <uestion. I thin. that if the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature had mere2y enhan6ed the pe6uniary /urisdi6tion of any of the eAistin- 6i8i2 6ourts there 6ou2d ha8e been no ob/e6tion to that 6ourse. =hy then shou2d there be any ob/e6tion :hen0 instead of in8estin- one of the eAistin- 6ourts :ith po:er to try suits and pro6eedin-s of a 6i8i2 nature not eA6eedin- a 6ertain amount0 the 'e-is2ature has 6reated a ne: 6ourt and in8ested it :ith the same po:er. *). 1erhaps0 it :i22 be simp2er to dea2 at this sta-e :ith the third <uestion0 name2y0 :hether the Bombay City Ci8i2 has /urisdi6tion to try a suit based on a promissory note. So far as this point is 6on6erned0 the

respondent bases his 6ontention on entries *9 and $$ of 'ist I. Cntry *9 re2ates to D6he<ues0 bi22s of eA6han-e0 promissory notes and other 2i.e in instrumentsD. Cntry 5$0 as a2ready stated0 re2ates to D/urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts :ith respe6t to any of the matters in 'ist I.D It is 6ontended on beha2f of the respondent that the effe6t of these t:o entries0 :hen they are read to-ether0 is that no 6ourt 6an try a suit re2atin- to a promissory note0 un2ess it is in8ested :ith the /urisdi6tion to try su6h a suit by the Centra2 'e-is2ature by 8irtue of the po:er -i8en by entry 5$ of 'ist I. ;he <uestion so raised is 6o8ered by the ans:er to the first <uestion0 and I sha22 on2y add that the ans:er a2ready -i8en to that <uestion finds some support in the 6ase of 1rafu22a Gumar &u.her/ee and %ther 8. Ban. of Commer6e 'imited0 Ghu2na2 +19(B, 4.C.R. *90 in :hi6h the ar-uments of the respondents before the 1ri8y Coun6i2 pro6eeded on the same 2ines as the ar-uments of the respondents before us. ;he <uestion raised in that 6ase :as as to the 8a2idity of the Ben-a2 &oney72endersD A6t0 19()0 :hi6h 2imited the amount re6o8erab2e by a money72ender on his 2oans and interests on them0 and prohibited the payments of sums 2ar-er than those permitted by the A6t. ;he 8a2idity of the A6t :as <uestioned by the respondent Ban. in 6ertain suits brou-ht by them to re6o8er 2oans and interests a22e-ed to be due on promissory notes eAe6uted by the appe22ants7borro:ers as :e22 as in suits brou-ht by the debtors 62aimin- re2ief under the A6t. ;he ar-ument put for:ard on beha2f of the Ban. :as that the Ben-a2 'e-is2ature by the impu-ned A6t had attempted to 2e-is2ate on sub/e6ts eApress2y forbidden to it and eApress2y and eA62usi8e2y reser8ed for the 4edera2 'e-is2ature0 that is to say0 in re2ation to promissory notes and ban.in-0 :hi6h are reser8ed for the 4edera2 'e-is2ature eA62usi8e2y0 under entries *9 and $9 respe6ti8e of 'ist I. %n the other hand0 the ar-uments put for:ard on beha2f of the appe22ants :as that the impu-ned A6t :as in pith and substan6e 2e-is2ation dea2in- :ith money72endin- and that in so far as it dea2t :ith promissory notes or ban.in- that :as on2y in6identa2 or an6i22ary to the effe6ti8e use of the admitted 2e-is2ati8e po:ers of the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to dea2 :ith money72endin-. ;his ar-ument of the appe22ants :as substantia22y a66epted by the 1ri8y Coun6i2. *1. ;he se6ond point raised on beha2f of the respondent re2ates to the 8a2idity of Se6tion ( of the A6t0 :hi6h runs as fo22o:s :7 DSub/e6t to the eA6eptions spe6ified in Se6tion $0 the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment0 may by notifi6ation in the %ffi6ia2 @a5ette0 in8est the City Ci8i2 Court :ith /urisdi6tion to re6ei8e0 try and dispose of a22 suits and other pro6eedin-s of a 6i8i2 nature0 arisin- :ithin the @reater Bombay and of su6h 8a2ue not eA6eedinRs. *50))) as may be spe6ified in the notifi6ation.D **. It is 6ontended that this se6tion is in8a2id0 be6ause the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature has thereby de2e-ated its 2e-is2ati8e po:ers to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment :hi6h it 6annot do. ;his 6ontention does not appear to me to be sound. ;he se6tion itse2f sho:s that the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature ha8in- eAer6ised its /ud-ment and determined that the Ne: Court shou2d be in8ested :ith /urisdi6tion to try suits and pro6eedin-s of a 6i8i2 nature of a 8a2ue not eA6eedin- Rs. *50)))0 2eft it to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to determine :hen the Court shou2d be in8ested :ith this 2ar-er /urisdi6tion0 for :hi6h the 2imit had been fiAed. It is 62ear that if and :hen the Ne: Court has to be in8ested :ith the 2ar-er /urisdi6tion0 that /urisdi6tion :ou2d be due to no other authority than the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature itse2f and the 6ourt :ou2d eAer6ise that /urisdi6tion by 8irtue of the A6t itse2f. As se8era2 of my 2earned 6o22ea-ues ha8e pointed out0 the 6ase of Hueen 8. Burah $ A.C. 9990 the authority of :hi6h :as not <uestioned before us0 fu22y 6o8ers the 6ontention raised0 and the impu-ned pro8ision is an instan6e of :hat the 1ri8y Coun6i2 has desi-nated as 6onditiona2 2e-is2ation0 and does not rea22y de2e-ate any 2e-is2ati8e po:er but mere2y pres6ribes as to ho: effe6t is to be -i8en to :hat the 'e-is2ature has a2ready de6ided. As the 1ri8y Coun6i2 has pointed out0 2e-is2ation 6onditiona2 on the use of parti6u2ar po:ers or on the eAer6ise of a 2imited dis6retion entrusted by the 'e-is2ature to persons in :hom it p2a6es 6onfiden6e0 is no un6ommon thin-0 and in many instan6es it may be hi-h2y 6on8enient and desirab2e. CAamp2es of su6h 2e-is2ation abound in Cn-2and0 Ameri6a and other 6ountries. As some of the Ameri6an Jud-es ha8e remar.ed0 Dthere are many thin-s upon :hi6h :ise and usefu2 2e-is2ation must depend :hi6h 6annot be .no:n to the 2a:7ma.in- po:er and must therefore be the sub/e6t of en<uiry and determination outside the ha22s of 2e-is2ation 1($ F.S. (9. &r. Seta28ad0 the 2earned Attorney7@enera2 :ho appeared on beha2f of the appe22ant0 6ontended that in this 6ountry e8en de2e-ated 2e-is2ation is permissib2e0 but I do not 6onsider it ne6essary to -o into that <uestion0 be6ause the prin6ip2e enun6iated in Hueen 8. Burah 5 I.A. 1B9 is suffi6ient to dispose of the 6ontention raised here. I thin. that the present 6ase stands :e22 outside :hat :as 2aid do:n by the 4edera2 Court in Jitendranath

@upta 8. ;he 1ro8in6e of Bihar +19(9, 4.C.R. 5950 as t:o of my 6o22ea-ues :ho :ere parties to the ma/ority de6ision in that 6ase ha8e pointed out. *$. In the resu2t0 this appea2 is a22o:ed. 1atan/a2i Sastri0 J. *(. ;his appea2 raises the important <uestion of the 6onstitutiona2 8a2idity of the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t0 19(9 "hereinafter referred to as the A6t# and thou-h I 6on6ur in the 6on62usion rea6hed by the ma/ority of my 2earned brothers I :ish to state pre6ise2y the reasons :hi6h 2ead me to that 6on62usion. *5. ;he first respondent brou-ht the suit in the ?i-h Court at Bombay on its ori-ina2 side for re6o8ery of Rs. 110B)( from the se6ond respondent on promissory notes. Not:ithstandin- that the /urisdi6tion of the ?i-h Court to try suits 6o-nisab2e by the City Ci8i2 Court :as barred under Se6tion 1* of the A6t and the pe6uniary 2imit of the /urisdi6tion of the 2atter 6ourt had been enhan6ed from Rs. 1)0))) to Rs. *50))) by a notifi6ation issued by the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment under Se6tion ( of the A6t0 it :as stated in the p2aint that the ?i-h Court had /urisdi6tion to try the suit be6ause the A6t as :e22 as the said notifi6ation :as u2tra 8ires and 8oid. In 8ie: of the 6onstitutiona2 issues thus raised0 the State of Bombay0 the appe22ant herein :as on its o:n motion0 made a party defendant. * . ;he ?i-h Court "Cha-2a C.J. and ;endo2.ar J.# he2d "1# the A6t :as intra 8ires0 but "*# that Se6tion ( :hi6h authorised the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to enhan6e the /urisdi6tion of the City Court up the 2imit of Rs. *50))) amounted to a de2e-ation of 2e-is2ati8e po:er0 and as su6h0 :as 8oid and inoperati8e0 :ith the resu2t that the suit0 :hi6h eA6eeded Rs. 1)0))) in 8a2ue and :as not 6o-nisab2e by the City Court apart from the impea6hed notifi6ation0 :as he2d to ha8e been proper2y 2aid in the ?i-h Court. Both these findin-s ha8e been 6ha22en-ed before us as erroneous0 the first by the first respondent and the se6ond by the appe22ant. *B. %n the first point0 2earned 6ounse2 for the first respondent ur-ed that Se6tion 1)) of the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$50 read :ith entries 5$ of 'ist I0 * of 'ist II and 15 of 'ist III0 the re2e8ant parts of :hi6h are in identi6a2 terms0 name2y0 D/urisdi6tion and po:ers of a22 6ourts eA6ept the 4edera2 Court :ith respe6t to any of the matters in this 'istD0 6onferred po:er on 'e-is2atures in British India to ma.e 2a:s :ith respe6t to /urisdi6tion of 6ourts on2y in re2ation to matters fa22in- :ithin their respe6ti8e 2e-is2ati8e fie2ds0 and that0 therefore0 the eApressions Dadministration of /usti6eD and D6onstitution and or-anisation of 6ourtsD in entry 1 of 'ist II0 a2thou-h they mi-ht be :ide enou-h0 if that entry stood a2one0 to in62ude the topi6 of D/urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourtsD0 shou2d not be 6onstrued in that 6omprehensi8e sense as su6h 6onstru6tion :ou2d -i8e no effe6t to the 2imitin- :ords in entry * :hi6h :ou2d then be6ome meanin-2ess. Indeed if those eApressions in entry 1 in62uded the po:er to 2e-is2ate :ith respe6t to /urisdi6tion a2so0 there :ou2d be no need for entry *0 :hi2e0 on the other hand0 :ithout in62udin- su6h po:er0 they :ou2d sti22 ha8e amp2e 6ontent0 as 8arious other matters re2atin- to administration of /usti6e and 6onstitution of 6ourts :ou2d ha8e to be pro8ided for. ;he s6heme dis62osed by the three separate entries in identi6a2 terms in the three 2ists :as said to be this : ;he 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2atures :ere to ha8e the po:er of 6onstitutin- 6ourts and pro8idin- for administration of /usti6e0 but the po:er to in8est the 6ourts :ith /urisdi6tion :as to rest :ith the 4edera2 'e-is2ature in respe6t of the matters mentioned in 'ist I and :ith the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature in respe6t of the matters mentioned in 'ist II0 :hi2e both the 4edera2 and the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2atures :ere to ha8e su6h po:er :ith respe6t to the matters mentioned in 'ist III sub/e6t to the pro8isions of Se6tion 1)B. It :as0 therefore0 submitted that the A6t0 in so far as it purported to pro8ide by Se6tion $ that the City Ci8i2 Court estab2ished thereunder Dsha22 ha8e /urisdi6tion to re6ei8e0 try and dispose of a22 suits and other pro6eedin-s of a 6i8i2 nature not eA6eedin- Rs. 1)0))) in 8a2ue and arisin- :ithin @reater BombayD ":ith 6ertain eA6eptions not materia2 here# :as u2tra 8ires the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature0 6onstitutin- as it did a dire6t in8asion of the 4edera2 fie2d mar.ed out by entry 5$ of 'ist I. As a22 the three entries dea2t :ith the same topi6 of /urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts0 there :as no room0 it :as said0 for the app2i6ation of the do6trine of in6identa2 en6roa6hment. *9. ;he ar-ument is not :ithout for6e. ;he Bombay ?i-h Court in &u26hand 8. Raman 51 B.'.R. 9 0 :hi6h :as fo22o:ed by the 2earned Jud-es in the present 6ase0 and the Attorney7@enera2 :ho adopted the

same 2ine before us0 in8o.ed the do6trine of pith and substan6e in ans:er to the ar-ument on beha2f of the respondent. But that do6trine0 :hi2e it often furnishes the .ey to the so2ution of prob2ems arisin- out of the distribution of o8er2appin- 2e-is2ati8e po:ers in a 4edera2 system0 is not of mu6h assistan6e in meetin- the diffi6u2ty in findin- any usefu2ness in entry * if under entry 1 the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature :ere intended to ha8e the po:er to 2e-is2ate -enera22y :ith respe6t to the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts. ;he -reater po:er must in62ude the 2ess. A simi2ar diffi6u2ty in 6onstruin- entry ( of 'ist III and entry * of 'ist II arose in Ste:art 8. Bro/endra Gishore : AIR19$9Ca2 *9 and 2ed a 3i8ision Ben6h of the Ca26utta ?i-h Court to 6onstrue the eApression D6i8i2 pro6edureD o66urrin- in the former entry in a D2imited senseD as eA62udin- /urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts. After referrin- to the de6ision of the Judi6ia2 Committee in In re &arria-e Referen6e +191*, A.C. 99) :here Dmarria-e and di8or6eD in the 3ominion 'ist :as 6onstrued as eA62udin- matters re2atin- to the Dso2emnisation of marria-e in the pro8in6eD be6ause the 2atter topi6 :as spe6ifi6a22y in62uded in the 1ro8in6ia2 'ist0 the 2earned Jud-es obser8ed : D;he position is simi2ar here. DCi8i2 pro6edureD in the Con6urrent 'e-is2ati8e 'ist must be he2d to eA62ude matters re2atin- to /urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts sin6e spe6ia2 pro8ision is made for those matters e2se:here in the 2ists.D D;o ho2d other:iseD0 they pointed out0 D:ou2d be 6omp2ete2y to :ipe out the se6ond entry in the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ati8e 'istD. 'earned 6ounse2 for the first respondent stron-2y re2ied on that de6ision and su--ested that0 if it had been brou-ht to the noti6e of the 2earned Jud-es in &u26hand 8. Raman 51 B.'.R. 9 0 their de6ision mi-ht :e22 ha8e been the other :ay. *9. %n the other hand0 the Attorney7@enera2 submitted that there 6ou2d be no <uestion of 6onf2i6t bet:een t:o entries in the same 2ist and that the natura2 meanin- of one shou2d not be restri6ted simp2y be6ause of the presen6e of the other. ?e p2a6ed re2ian6e on the fo22o:in- obser8ations of @:yer C.J. in Ati<a Be-umDs 6ase +19(), 4.C.R. 11). DIt :ou2d be pra6ti6a22y impossib2e for eAamp2e to define ea6h item in the 1ro8in6ia2 'ist in su6h a :ay as to ma.e it eA62usi8e of e8ery item in that 'ist and 1ar2iament seems to ha8e been 6ontent to ta.e a number of 6omprehensi8e 6ate-ories and to des6ribe ea6h of them by :ords of broad and -enera2 import. .... I thin.0 ho:e8er0 that none of the items in the 2ists is to be read in a narro: or restri6ted sense and that ea6h -enera2 :ord shou2d be he2d to eAtend to a22 an6i22ary or subsidiary matters :hi6h 6an fair2y and reasonab2y be said to be 6omprehended in it.D ;hese obser8ations :ere0 ho:e8er0 made to support the 6on62usion that the po:er to 2e-is2ate :ith respe6t to D6o22e6tion of rentsD under entry *1 of 'ist II in62udes the po:er to 2e-is2ate :ith respe6t to any 2imitation on the po:er of a 2and2ord to 6o22e6t rents0 that is to say0 :ith respe6t to the remission of rents as :e220 and that0 therefore0 the Fnited 1ro8in6es Re-u2arisation of Remissions A6t0 19$90 :as intra 8ires. @enera2 obser8ations made in su6h 6onteAt do not ans:er the ob/e6tion that the :ider 6onstru6tion of entry 1 :ou2d depri8e entry * of a22 its 6ontent and redu6e it to use2ess 2umber. I am therefore0 of opinion that the :ords Dadministration of /usti6eD and D6onstitution and or-anisation of 6ourtsD o66urrin- in entry 1 must be understood in a restri6ted sense eA62udin- from their s6ope D/urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourtsD dea2t :ith spe6ifi6a22y in entry *. $). ;his does not0 ho:e8er0 6ompe2 the 6on62usion that it is beyond the 6ompeten6e of the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to 6onfer -enera2 /urisdi6tion on 6ourts 6onstituted by it0 for0 if entry 1 does not by itse2f enab2e the 2e-is2ature to do so0 entry * 6ertain2y does :hen read :ith entry 1. It shou2d be remembered 7 and this is :hat the ar-ument for restri6tin- the 2e-is2ati8e po:er of pro8in6es in re-ard to /urisdi6tion o8er2oo.s 7 that Dadministration of /usti6eD is one of the matters mentioned in 'ist II itse2f. ;he 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature0 therefore0 is 6ompetent under entry * to 2e-is2ate 6onferrin- /urisdi6tion on 6ourts :ith respe6t to administration of /usti6e0 that is to say0 -enera2 /urisdi6tion to administer /usti6e by ad/udi6atinon a22 matters brou-ht before them0 eA6ept0 of 6ourse0 matters eA62uded eApress2y or by imp2i6ation either by an eAistin- 2a: 6ontinued in for6e or by a statute passed by the appropriate 2e-is2ature under the entries in the three 'ists re2atin- to /urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts. In other :ords0 thou-h Dadministration of /usti6eD in entry 1 does not authorise 2e-is2ation :ith respe6t to /urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts0 the 2e-is2ati8e po:er under entry * in re-ard to the 2atter topi60 :hi6h 6an be 2e-itimate2y eAer6ised D:ith respe6t to any of the matters in this 'ist0D 6an be eAer6ised :ith respe6t to administration of /usti6e0 one of the matters 6omprised in that 'ist0 :ith the resu2t that the sub/e6t of -enera2 /urisdi6tion is brou-ht :ithin the authorised area of pro8in6ia2 2e-is2ation. ;his 8ie: thus 2ea8es a fie2d in :hi6h entry * 6ou2d app2y. $1. =hen on6e the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature is found 6ompetent to ma.e a 2a: :ith respe6t to the -enera2 /urisdi6tion of 6ourts0 the apparent 6onf2i6t :ith the Centra2 'e-is2ati8e po:er under entry 5$ of 'ist I 6an

be reso28ed in a -i8en 6ase by in8o.in- the do6trine of pith and substan6e and in6identa2 en6roa6hment. 4or0 that ru2e0 thou-h not of mu6h assistan6e in 6onstruin- entries 1 and * :hi6h o66ur in the same 'ist II0 has its 2e-itimate app2i6ation in as6ertainin- the true 6hara6ter of an ena6tment and attributin- it to the appropriate 2ist :here the 4edera2 and the 1ro8in6ia2 'ists happen to o8er2ap. A66ordin-2y0 if the 'e-is2ature of Bombay :as0 in 6onferrin- /urisdi6tion on the City Ci8i2 Court to hear and determine a22 suits of a 6i8i2 nature0 rea22y 2e-is2atin- on a sub/e6t :hi6h :as :ithin the ambit its 2e-is2ati8e po:er0 and if in doin- so0 it en6roa6hed on the forbidden fie2d mar.ed off by entry 5$ of 'ist 10 the en6roa6hment shou2d be ta.en to be on2y in6identa2. It may be that su6h en6roa6hment eAtends to the :ho2e of that fie2d0 but that is immateria20 as pointed out by the Judi6ia2 Committee in the Ghu2na Ban. 6ase +19(B, 4.C.R. *9. %ne of the <uestions their 'ordships put to themse28es in that 6ase :as D%n6e it is determined that the pith and substan6e is money72endin-0 is the eAtent to :hi6h the federa2 fie2d is in8aded a materia2 matter ED Ans:erin- the <uestion in the ne-ati8e their 'ordships obser8ed : DNo doubt it is an important matter0 not0 as their 'ordships thin.0 be6ause the 8a2idity of an A6t 6an be determined by dis6riminatin- bet:een de-rees of in8asion0 but for the purpose of determinin- :hat is the pith and substan6e of the impu-ned A6t. Its pro8isions may ad8an6e so far into the federa2 territory as to sho: that its true nature is not 6on6erned :ith pro8in6ia2 matters0 but the <uestion is not0 has its trespassed0 more or 2ess0 but is the trespass0 :hate8er it be0 su6h as to sho: that the pith and substan6e of the impu-ned A6t is not money72endin- but promissory7notes or ban.in- E %n6e that <uestion is determined0 the A6t fa22s on one or the otherside of the 2ine and 6an be seen as 8a2id or in8a2id a66ordin- to its true 6ontentD. In ans:erinthe ob/e6tion that the 8ie: does not -i8e suffi6ient effe6t to the :ords of pre6eden6e used in Se6tion 1)) of the @o8ernment of India A6t as bet:een the three 'ists0 their 'ordships :ent on to say DNo doubt :here they 6ome in 6onf2i6t 'ist I has priority o8er 'ist III and II0 and 'ist III has priority o8er 'ist II! but the <uestion sti22 remains priority in :hat respe6t E 3oes the priority of the 4edera2 'e-is2ature pre8ent the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature from dea2in- :ith any matter :hi6h may in6identa22y affe6t any item in its 2ist or in ea6h 6ase has one to 6onsider :hat the substan6e of an A6t is and :hate8er its an6i22ary effe6t0 attribute it to the appropriate 2ist a66ordin- to its true 6hara6ter E In their 'ordshipsD opinion the 2atter is the true 8ie:.D $*. ;he test for determinin- :hether in pith and substan6e a parti6u2ar ena6tment fa22s :ithin one 2ist or another is further e2u6idated in a passa-e <uoted :ith appro8a2 from 'efroyDs ;reatise on Canadian Constitutiona2 'a: in the /ud-ment of the 4edera2 Court in the Ban. of Commer6e 6ase ++19((, 4.C.R. 1* 0 1$9.,. DIt seems <uite possib2eD says the 2earned :riter0 summarisin- the effe6t of the 1ri8y Coun6i2 de6isions on the point Dthat a parti6u2ar A6t re-arded from one aspe6t mi-ht be intra 8ires of a 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature and yet re-arded from another aspe6t mi-ht a2so be intra 8ires of the 3ominion 1ar2iament. In other :ords0 :hat is proper2y to be 6a22ed the sub/e6t7matter of an A6t may depend upon :hat is the true aspe6t of the A6t. ;he 6ases :hi6h i22ustrated this prin6ip2e sho:0 by Daspe6tD here must be understood the aspe6t or point of 8ie: of the 2e-is2ator in 2e-is2ation 7 the ob/e6t0 purpose and s6ope of the 2e-is2ation. ;he :ords is used sub/e6ti8e2y of the 2e-is2ator rather than ob/e6ti8e2y of the matter 2e-is2ated upon.D App2yin- that test there 6an be 2itt2e doubt that the impu-ned A6t must0 in its pith and substan6e0 be attributed to 'ist II0 as the 2e-is2ators of Bombay :ere 6ertain2y not 6onferrin- on the ne: 6ourt0 :hi6h they :ere 6onstitutin- under the A6t0 /urisdi6tion :ith respe6t to any of the matters in 'ist I. ;hey :ere0 as Se6tion $ 62ear2y indi6ates 6onstitutin- a ne: 6ourt0 the Bombay City Court0 and in8estin- it :ith the -enera2 /urisdi6tion to try a22 suits of a 6i8i2 nature :ithin 6ertain pe6uniary and territoria2 2imits0 and if they :ere a6tin-0 as I ha8e endea8oured to sho:0 :ithin the s6ope of the 2e-is2ati8e po:er 6onferred on them under entry * read :ith entry 1 of 'ist II0 it seems immateria2 that the ena6tment0 so far as one aspe6t of /urisdi6tion0 name2y0 its 6onferment0 is 6on6erned0 en6roa6hes pra6ti6a22y on the :ho2e of the federa2 fie2d mar.ed out by entry 5$ of 'ist I. ;he en6roa6hment0 ho:e8er0 :ou2d sti22 2ea8e amp2e room for the eAer6ise by the 6enter of its 2e-is2ati8e po:er under entry 5$ in re-ard to other aspe6ts of /urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts. $$. ;his 8ie: is stron-2y reinfor6ed by a 6onsideration of the 2e-is2ati8e pra6ti6e pre8ai2in- in this 6ountry prior to the passin- of the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$5. ;hat it is 2e-itimate to ha8e re-ard to 2e-is2ati8e pra6ti6e in determinin- the s6ope of 2e-is2ati8e po:ers has been re6o-nised in de6isions of hi-h authority "e.-.0 Croft 8. 3unphy# +19$$, A.C. 15 0 1 5. It had 2on- been the pra6ti6e in this 6ountry to 6onstitute and or-anise 6ourts :ith -enera2 /urisdi6tion o8er a22 persons and matters sub/e6t on2y to 6ertain pe6uniary and territoria2 2imitations0 and to 6onfer spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion 2imited to 6ertain spe6ified

6ases or matters either on the ordinary 6ourts in addition to their -enera2 /urisdi6tion or on tribuna2s set up to dea2 :ith su6h matters eA62usi8e2y. ;he 8arious 1ro8in6ia2 Ci8i2 Court A6ts as :e22 as the pro8isions of the Ci8i2 and Crimina2 1ro6edure Codes in8est the 6ourts0 both 6i8i2 and 6rimina20 :ith -enera2 /urisdi6tion0 that is to say0 po:er to ad/udi6ate in respe6t of a22 persons and a22 matters eA6ept those that are spe6ifi6a22y eA62uded or brou-ht :ithin the 6o-nisan6e of tribuna2s :ith spe6ia2 or 2imited /urisdi6tion eAtendin- on2y to those matters. ;he -radin- of the 6ourt too in their hierar6hy has referen6e to the pe6uniary and territoria2 2imits rather than to the nature and .ind of the sub/e6t7matter :hi6h they are empo:ered to dea2 :ith. It is reasonab2e to presume that this system of or-anisation of 6ourts in British Indian :as .no:n to the framers of the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$50 and it 6annot be readi2y supposed that they :anted to introdu6e a radi6a2 6han-e by :hi6h the po:er of 6onstitutin- 6ourts and pro8idinfor administration of /usti6e is to be 8ested in the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2atures0 :hi2e /urisdi6tion has to be 6onferred by pie6emea2 2e-is2ation by the 4edera2 and 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2atures :ith respe6t to spe6ifi6 matters fa22in- :ithin their respe6ti8e 2e-is2ati8e fie2ds :hi6h are by no means 6apab2e of 62ear demar6ation. ;he 6onstitutiona2 pu552es :hi6h su6h a system is 2i.e2y to pose to the 2e-is2atures no 2ess than to the 6ourts and the 2iti-ant pub2i6 in the 6ountry :hene8er a ne: 6ourt is 6onstituted in findin- out by sear6hin- throu-h the 2e-is2ati8e 2ists0 :hether /urisdi6tion to dea2 :ith a parti6u2ar matter or po:er to ma.e a parti6u2ar order is 8a2id2y 6onferred by the appropriate 2e-is2ature0 must ma.e one pause and eAamine the re2e8ant pro8isions of the @o8ernment of India A6t to see if there is anythin- in them to 6ompe2 the a66eptan6e of so no8e2 a system. After -i8in- the matter my 6arefu2 6onsideration0 I am 6on8in6ed that both the 2an-ua-e of the pro8isions and the ante6edent 2e-is2ati8e pra6ti6e support the 6on62usion that the 1ro8in6ia2 2e-is2atures0 :hi6h ha8e the eA62usi8e po:er of 6onstitutin- and or-anisin6ourts and of pro8idin- for the administration of /usti6e in their respe6ti8e pro8in6es0 ha8e a2so the po:er of in8estin- the 6ourts :ith -enera2 /urisdi6tion. $(. %n the <uestion :hether Se6tion ( of the A6t operates as a de2e-ation of 2e-is2ati8e po:er0 I entire2y a-ree :ith the reasonin- and 6on62usion of my 2earned brother 3as0 :ho has said a22 I :ish to say in his /ud-ment :hi6h I ha8e had the ad8anta-e of readin-0 and0 2i.e him0 I reser8e the 2ar-er <uestion raised by the Attorney7@enera2 as to ho: far it is open to the 2e-is2atures in this 6ountry0 :hi2e a6tin- :ithin their authorised areas0 to de2e-ate their 2e-is2ati8e po:ers to other a-en6ies. I find it no more ne6essary in the present 6ase to de6ide that point than in Jatindranath @uptaDs 6ase +19(9, 4.C.R. 595 :here I preferred to rest my de6ision on a narro:er -round. $5. It fo22o:s that the ?i-h Court has no /urisdi6tion to hear and determine the first respondentDs suit and I a-ree that the appea2 shou2d be a22o:ed. &aha/an0 J. $ . ;his is an appea2 from the /ud-ment of the ?i-h Court of Judi6ature at Bombay dated the *9th &ar6h0 195)0 in Suit No. *() of 195)0 ho2din- that Se6tion ( of the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t "Bombay A6t >' of 19(9# is u2tra 8ires the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature. $B. ;he fa6ts are that on the th 4ebruary0 195)0 the first respondent presented a p2aint to the 1rothonotary and Senior &aster of the ?i-h Court for fi2in- a summary suit a-ainst the se6ond respondent to re6o8er a sum of Rs. 110B)(7*7( a22e-ed to be due under promissory note. ;his suit :as instituted in the ?i-h Court0 in 6ontra8ention of a notifi6ation dated the *)th January0 195)0 issued under Se6tion ( of the City Ci8i2 Court A6t0 under :hi6h suits up to the pe6uniary 2imit of Rs. *50))) 6ou2d be heard on2y by the City Ci8i2 Court0 and not by the ?i-h Court. As the <uestion of /urisdi6tion :as of importan6e0 the matter :as referred to the sittin- Jud-e in Chambers. %n *$rd 4ebruary0 195)0 the 2earned Jud-e admitted the p2aint ho2din- that Se6tion ( of the A6t :as u2tra 8ires the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature and the notifi6ation issued under it :as 6onse<uent2y inoperati8e and that the ?i-h Court had /urisdi6tion to hear the suit. ;he first respondent thereupon too. out summons for /ud-ment a-ainst the se6ond respondents. %n the app2i6ation of the Ad8o6ate7@enera20 the State of Bombay :as imp2eaded as defendant at this sta-e and the pro6eedin-s :ere transferred to a 3i8ision Ben6h of the ?i-h Court. ;he 3i8ision Ben6h uphe2d the 8ie: of the Jud-e in Chambers and returned the 6ause to him for disposa2 on the merits. ;he State of Bombay0 dissatisfied :ith this de6ision0 has preferred the present appea2.

$9. ;:o <uestions ha8e been 6an8assed in this appea2 : "1# :hether the City Ci8i2 Court A6t is u2tra 8ires the 2e-is2ature of the 1ro8in6e of Bombay in so far a it dea2s :ith the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of the ?i-h Court and City Ci8i2 Courts :ith respe6t to matters in 'ist I of the Se8enth S6hedu2e of the @o8ernment of Indian A6t0 19$5! and "*# :hether Se6tion ( of the A6t is 8oid as it purports to de2e-ate to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment 2e-is2ati8e authority in the matter of in8estin- the City Ci8i2 Court :ith eAtended /urisdi6tion. $9. Bombay A6t of 19(9 6ame into for6e on 1)th &ay0 19(9. It :as 6onsidered eApedient to estab2ish an additiona2 6i8i2 6ourt for @reater Bombay presumab2y :ith the ob/e6t of re2ie8in- 6on-estion of :or. on the ori-ina2 side of the Bombay ?i-h Court. Se6tions $0 ( and 1* of the A6t are in these terms :7 D$. ;he State @o8ernment may0 by notifi6ation in the %ffi6ia2 @a5ette0 estab2ish for the @reater Bombay a 6ourt0 to be 6a22ed the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court. Not:ithstandin- anythin- 6ontained in any 2a:0 su6h 6ourt sha22 ha8e /urisdi6tion to re6ei8e0 try and dispose of a22 suits and other pro6eedin-s of a 6i8i2 nature not eA6eedin- ten thousand rupees in 8a2ue0 and arisin- :ithin the @reater Bombay0 eA6ept suits or pro6eedin-s :hi6h are 6o-nisab2e 7 "a# by the ?i-h Court as a Court of Admira2ty or Vi6e7Admira2ty or as a Co2onia2 Court of Admira2ty0 or as a Court ha8in- testamentary0 intestate or matrimonia2 /urisdi6tion0 or "b# by the ?i-h Court for the re2ief of inso28ent debtors0 or "6# by the ?i-h Court under any spe6ia2 2a: other than the 'etters 1atent0 or "d# by the Sma22 Cause Court : 1ro8ided that the State @o8ernment may0 from time to time0 after 6onsu2tation :ith the ?i-h Court0 by a 2i.e notifi6ation eAtend the /urisdi6tion of the City Court to any suits or pro6eedin-s :hi6h are 6o-nisab2e by the ?i-h Court as a 6ourt ha8in- testamentary or intestate /urisdi6tion or for the re2ief on inso28ent debtors. "(# Sub/e6t to the eA6eptions spe6ified in Se6tion $ the State @o8ernment may by notifi6ation in the %ffi6ia2 @a5ette0 in8est the City Court :ith /urisdi6tion to re6ei8e0 try and dispose of a22 suits and other pro6eedin-s of a 6i8i2 nature arisin- :ithin the @reater Bombay and of su6h 8a2ue not eA6eedint:enty7fi8e thousand rupees as may be spe6ified in the notifi6ation. 1*. Not:ithstandin- anythin- 6ontained in any 2a:0 the ?i-h Court sha22 not ha8e /urisdi6tion to try suits and pro6eedin-s 6o-nisab2e by the City Court : 1ro8ided that the ?i-h Court may0 for any spe6ia2 reason0 and at any sta-e remo8e for tria2 by itse2f any suit or pro6eedin- from the City Court.D (). %n the se6ond <uestion the ?i-h Court he2d that Se6tion ( of the A6t :as inoperati8e as it purported to de2e-ate the 2a:7ma.in- po:ers of the 2e-is2ature to an outside authority and hen6e the notifi6ation issued in pursuan6e of it had no effe6t :hatsoe8er and did not ta.e a:ay the /urisdi6tion of the ?i-h Court to try the present suit. %n the first <uestion the ?i-h Court p2a6ed re2ian6e on its o:n ear2ier de6ision in &u26hand Gundanma2 Ja-tiani 8. Raman ?ira2a2 Shah 51 Bom. '.B. 9 0 and he2d that the A6t :as intra 8ires the Bombay 'e-is2ature. ;he appe22ant assai2s the 6orre6tness of the de6ision of the ?i-h Court on the se6ond point and supports the de6ision on the first point. ;he first respondent0 on the other hand0 :hi2e supportin- the de6ision of the ?i-h Court on the se6ond <uestion0 6ha22en-es its 6orre6tness in re-ard to the first <uestion. ;he 2earned Attorney7@enera2 6ontends that the ?i-h Court p2a6ed an erroneous 6onstru6tion on Se6tions $ and ( of the A6t! that readin- the t:o se6tions to-ether the effe6t is that the 2e-is2ature has set up the City Ci8i2 Court :ith an initia2 /urisdi6tion of Rs. 1)0))) and has p2a6ed an outside 2imit of Rs. *50))) on its pe6uniary /urisdi6tion and that it has 2eft to the dis6retion of the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment the determination of the 6ir6umstan6es under :hi6h this eAtension of the pe6uniary /urisdi6tion bet:een Rs. 1)0))) to Rs. *50))) is to ta.e p2a6e. It :as said that Se6tion ( is in the nature of a 6onditiona2 2e-is2ation and that under it no 2e-is2ati8e fun6tion has been de2e-ated to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment. ;he 2earned Chief Justi6e in the 6ourt be2o: disposed of this 6ontention :ith the fo22o:in- obser8ations : 7

DI am a2so 6ons6ious of the that an A6t must be 6onstrued in a manner :hi6h :ou2d re6on6i2e its different se6tions but :ith the best of intention in the :or2d I do not see ho: it is possib2e to read Se6tions $ and ( to-ether so as to 6ome to the 6on62usion for :hi6h the Ad8o6ate7@enera2 6ontends. ;o my mind it is patent that the 'e-is2ature ne8er app2ied its mind to the <uestion as to :hether the ne: 6ourt :hi6h it :as settin- up shou2d ha8e a /urisdi6tion hi-her than that of Rs. 1)0))). It ne8er passed any /ud-ment on that <uestion. It ne8er 2aid do:n any po2i6y :ith re-ard to that <uestion and Se6tion ( is not a se6tion :hi6h mere2y dire6ts the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to 6arry out the po2i6y 2aid do:n by the 2e-is2ature.... but it is a se6tion :hi6h 6onfers upon the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment the po:er to 6onfer /urisdi6tion upon the Court0 or in other :ords0 it is a se6tion :hi6h entit2ed the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to 2ay do:n its po2i6y as to :hether the ne: Court shou2d ha8e the in6reased /urisdi6tion up to t:enty7fi8e thousand rupees.D (1. I find it diffi6u2t to a66ept this 8ie:. =ithout app2yin- its mind to the <uestion as to :hether the ne: Court :hi6h it :as settin- up shou2d ha8e a /urisdi6tion hi-her than Rs. 1)0)))0 ho: 6ou2d the 2e-is2ature possib2y ena6t in Se6tion ( that the pe6uniary /urisdi6tion of the ne: 6ourt :ou2d not eA6eed Rs. *50))). ;he fiAation of the maAimum 2imit of the 6ourtDs pe6uniary /urisdi6tion is the resu2t of eAer6ise of 2e-is2ati8e :i220 as :ithout arri8in- at this /ud-ment it :ou2d not ha8e been ab2e to determine the outside 2imit of the pe6uniary /urisdi6tion of the ne: 6ourt. ;he po2i6y of the 2e-is2ature in re-ard to the pe6uniary /urisdi6tion of the 6ourt that :as bein- set up :as sett2ed by Se6tions $ and ( of the A6t and it :as to the effe6t that initia22y its pe6uniary /urisdi6tion :i22 be 2imited to Rs. 1)0))) and that in future if 6ir6umstan6es ma.e it desirab2e 7 and this :as 2eft to the determination of the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment 7 it 6ou2d be -i8en /urisdi6tion to hear 6ases up to the 8a2ue of Rs. *50))). It :as a2so determined that the eAtension of the pe6uniary /urisdi6tion of the ne: 6ourt :i22 be sub/e6t to the pro8isions 6ontained in the eA6eptions to Se6tion $. I am therefore of the opinion that the 2earned Chief Justi6e :as not ri-ht in sayin- that the 2e-is2ati8e mind :as ne8er app2ied as to the 6onditions sub/e6t to :hi6h and as to the amount up to :hi6h the ne: 6ourt 6ou2d ha8e pe6uniary /urisdi6tion. A22 that :as 2eft to the dis6retion of the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment :as the determination of the 6ir6umstan6es under :hi6h the ne: 6ourt :ou2d be 62othed :ith enhan6ed pe6uniary /urisdi6tion. ;he 8ita2 matters of po2i6y ha8in- been determined0 the a6tua2 eAe6ution of that po2i6y :as 2eft to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment and to su6h 6onditiona2 2e-is2ation no eA6eption 6ou2d be ta.en. ;he se6tion does not empo:er the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to ena6t a 2a: as re-ards the pe6uniary /urisdi6tion of the ne: 6ourt and it 6an in no sense be he2d to be 2e-is2ation 6onferrin- 2e-is2ati8e po:er on the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment. (*. In Hueen 8. Burah 5 I.A. 1B90 Se6tion 9 of A6t >>II of 19 90 :hi6h :as a pie6e of 2e-is2ation ana2o-ous to Se6tion ( of the City Ci8i2 Court A6t0 :as he2d intra 8ires by their 'ordships of the 1ri8y Coun6i2. By the 9th se6tion po:er :as 6onferred on the 'ieutenant @o8ernor of Ben-a2 to determine :hether the A6t or any part of it shou2d be app2ied to 6ertain distri6ts. In other :ords0 authority to eAtend the territoria2 2imits of the operation of the statute :as 6onferred on the 'ieutenant @o8ernor and su6h eAtension had the resu2t of depri8in- the ?i-h Court of its /urisdi6tion in those areas and of 6onferrin/urisdi6tion in respe6t to them on the 6ommissioner. %b/e6tion :as ta.en as to the 8a2idity of Se6tion 9 on the -round that it :as 2e-is2ation de2e-atin- 2e-is2ati8e po:er and :as therefore 8oid. ;heir 'ordships ne-ati8ed this 6ontention and he2d that Se6tion 9 :as intra 8ires the @o8ernor @enera2Ds po:er to ma.e 2a:s and :as a pie6e of 6onditiona2 2e-is2ation. ;hat :as a 6ase of an eAtension of territoria2 2imits :ithin :hi6h an A6t of the 'e-is2ature :as to be in for6e0 :hereas the present is a 6ase of eAtension of pe6uniary 2imits of a 6ourtDs /urisdi6tion. In prin6ip2e0 there seems no differen6e bet:een the t:o 6ases and the present 6ase is therefore :ithin the ru2e of the de6ision in Hueen 8. Burah 51 I.A. 1B9. ;heir 'ordships in ho2din- Se6tion 9 intra 8ires made the fo22o:in- obser8ations :7 D;heir 'ordships thin. that it is a fa22a6y to spea. of the po:ers thus 6onferred upon the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor "2ar-e as they undoubted2y are# as if0 :hen they :ere eAer6ised0 of effi6a6y the a6ts done under them :ou2d be due to any other 2e-is2ati8e authority than that of the @o8ernor7@enera2 in Coun6i2. ;heir :ho2e operation is0 dire6t2y and immediate2y0 under and by 8irtue of this A6t ">>II of 19 9# itse2f. ;he proper 'e-is2ature has eAer6ised its /ud-ment as to p2a6e0 person0 2a:s0 po:ers0 and the resu2t of that /ud-ment has been to 2e-is2ate 6onditiona22y as to a22 these thin-s. ;he 6onditions ha8inbeen fu2fi22ed0 the 2e-is2ations is no: abso2ute. =here p2enary po:ers of 2e-is2ation eAist as to parti6u2ar sub/e6ts0 :hether in an Imperia2 or in a 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature0 they may "in their 'ordshipDs /ud-ment# be :e22 eAer6ised0 either abso2ute2y or 6onditiona22y. 'e-is2ation0 6onditiona2 on the use of parti6u2ar po:ers0

or on the eAer6ise of a 2imited dis6retion0 entrusted by the 'e-is2ature to persons in :hom it p2a6es 6onfiden6e0 is no un6ommon thin-! and0 in many 6ir6umstan6es it may be hi-h2y 6on8enient. ;he British Statute Boo. abounds :ith eAamp2es of it! and it 6annot be supposed that the Imperia2 1ar2iament did not0 :hen 6onstitutin- the Indian 'e-is2ature0 6ontemp2ate this .ind of 6onditiona2 2e-is2ation as :ithin the s6ope of the 2e-is2ati8e po:er :hi6h it from time to time 6onferred. It 6ertain2y used no :ords to eA62ude it.D ($. ;hese obser8ations apposite2y app2y to the 2e-is2ati8e pro8ision 6ontained in Se6tion ( of the impu-ned A6t. ;he true distin6tion is bet:een the de2e-ation of po:er to ma.e the 2a: :hi6h ne6essari2y in8o28es a dis6retion as to :hat it sha22 be and 6onferrin- authority or dis6retion as to its eAe6ution0 to be eAer6ised under and in pursuan6e of the 2a:. %b/e6tion may be ta.en to the former but not to the 2atter. Referen6e in this 6onne6tion may a2so be made to the de6ision of the Supreme Court of Ameri6a in 4ie2d 8. C2ar. 1($ F.S. (9 :herein referrin- to 'o6.eDs 6ase B* 1a. (91 the fo22o:in- obser8ations :ere made :7 D;o assert that a 2a: is 2ess than 2a:0 be6ause it is made it is made to depend on a future e8ent or a6t0 is to rob the 'e-is2ature of the po:er to a6t :ise2y for the pub2i6 :e2fare :hene8er a 2a: is passed re2atin- to a state of affairs not yet de8e2oped0 or to thin-s future and impossib2e to fu22y .no:.D ;he proper distin6tion the 6ourt said :as this : D;he 'e-is2ature 6annot de2e-ate its po:er to ma.e a 2a:0 but it 6an ma.e a 2a: to de2e-ate po:er to determine some fa6t or state of thin-s upon :hi6h the 2a: ma.es0 or intends to ma.e0 its o:n a6tion depend. ;o deny this :ou2d be to stop the :hee2s of -o8ernment. ;here are many thin-s upon :hi6h :ise and usefu22 2e-is2ation must depend :hi6h 6annot be .no:n to the 2a:7ma.in- po:er0 and0 must therefore0 be a sub/e6t of in<uiry and determination outside of the ha22s of 2e-is2ation.D ((. ;he ?i-h Court in support of its 8ie: p2a6ed 6onsiderab2e re2ian6e on the de6ision of the 4edera2 Court in Jatindra Nath @upta 8. ;he 1ro8in6e of Bihar 19(9, 4.C.R. 59$ and it :as 6onsidered that the present 6ase fe22 :ithin the ambit of the ru2e therein 2aid do:n. It seems to me that the de6ision in the Bihar 6ase has no app2i6ation to the 6ase in hand. ;he 4edera2 Court there :as dea2in- :ith an A6t :hi6h 6ontained the fo22o:in- pro8isions in Se6tion 10 sub7se6tion "$# :7 D;he A6t sha22 remain in for6e for a period of one year from the date of its 6ommen6ement : 1ro8ided that the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment may0 by notifi6ation0 on a reso2ution passed by the Bihar 'e-is2ati8e Assemb2y and a-reed to by the Bihar 'e-is2ati8e Coun6i20 dire6t that this A6t sha22 remain in for6e for a further period of one year :ith su6h modifi6ations0 if any0 as may be spe6ified is the notifi6ation.D (5. In 6onne6tion :ith this pro8iso I said in my /ud-ment in that 6ase that the po:er 6onferred therein :as mu6h 2ar-er than :as 6onferred on the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor in Hueen 8. Burah 5 I.A. 1B9 inasmu6h a it authorised the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to modify the A6t and a2so to re7ena6t it. It :as pointed out that Ddistin6tion bet:een de2e-ation of po:er to ma.e the 2a: :hi6h ne6essari2y in8o28es a dis6retion as to :hat it sha22 be0 and 6onferrin- dis6retion or authority as to its eAe6ution to be eAer6ised under and in pursuan6e of the 2a: is a true one and has to be made in a22 6ases :here su6h a <uestion is raised.D ;he fo22o:in- obser8ations made by me there pointed2y brin- out the distin6tion bet:een the t:o 6ases :7 D;he pro8iso :hi6h has been assai2ed in this 6ase0 /ud-ed on the abo8e test0 6omes :ithin the ambit of de2e-ated 2e-is2ation0 and is thus an improper pie6e of 2e-is2ation and is 8oid. ;o my mind0 it not on2y amounts to abdi6ation of 2e-is2ati8e authority by the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature0 it -oes further and amounts to settin- up a para22e2 'e-is2ature for ena6tin- a modified Bihar &aintenan6e of 1ub2i6 %rder A6t and for ena6tin- a pro8ision in it that that A6t has to be ena6ted for a further period of one year. A 6arefu2 ana2ysis of the pro8iso bears out the abo8e 6on62usion. It may be as.ed :hat does the pro8iso purport to do in terms and in substan6e E ;he ans:er is that it empo:ers the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to issue a notifi6ation sayin- that the 1ro8in6ia2 A6t sha22 remain in for6e for a further period of one year :ith su6h modifi6ations0 if any0 as may be spe6ified in the notifi6ation... &odifi6ation of statue amounts to re7ena6tin- it partia22y. It in8o28es the po:er to say that 6ertain parts of it are no 2on-er parts the statute and that a statute :ith > se6tions is no: ena6ted :ith I se6tions. In the a6t of modifi6ation is in8o28ed a 2e-is2ati8e po:er as a dis6retion has to be eAer6ised :hether 6ertain parts of the statute are to remain 2a: in future or not or ha8e to be de2eted from it. ;he po:er to modify may e8en in8o28e a po:er to repea2

parts of it. A modified statute is not the same ori-ina2 statute. It is a ne: A6t and 2o-i6a22y spea.in-0 it amounts to ena6tin- a ne: 2a:.D ( . I ha8e not been ab2e to fo22o: ho: these obser8ations 6on6ernin- the Bihar stature 6ou2d be re2ied upon by the ?i-h Court in support of its de6ision in respe6t to the in8a2idity of Se6tion ( of the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t. ;he t:o pro8isions are not ana2o-ous in any manner :hatsoe8er and that bein- so0 no support 6an be deri8ed by the respondent from this de6ision. (B. In the 6on62udin- portion of his /ud-ment under appea2 the 2earned Chief Justi6e obser8ed as fo22o:s :7 DNo: app2yin- on6e more these tests to the City Ci8i2 Court A6t0 :e find that the 'e-is2ature in the eAer6ise of its 2e-is2ati8e po:er has set up a Ci8i2 Court :ith a 2imited /urisdi6tion under Se6tion 5 of the A6t. It has not set up a 6ourt :ith /urisdi6tion hi-her than ten thousand rupees. ?a8in- set up a 6ourt of 2imited /urisdi6tion it has -i8en to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment under Se6tion ( the po:er to 6onfer upon that 6ourt a hi-her /urisdi6tion up to t:enty7fi8e thousand rupees. No: this po:er :hi6h is 6onferred upon the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment is a po:er :hi6h 6ou2d on2y ha8e been eAer6ised by the 'e-is2ature itse2f.D (9. It seems to me that the abo8e obser8ations are based on a 6onstru6tion of Se6tions $ and ( of the A6t :hi6h these se6tions 6annot 2e-itimate2y bear. As a2ready obser8ed0 the 'e-is2ature set up a Ci8i2 Court for @reater Bombay and de6ided that0 to start :ith0 it :i22 ha8e pe6uniary /urisdi6tion up to Rs. 1)0))). It a2so de6ided at the same time that it :ou2d a2so ha8e /urisdi6tion up to Rs. *50))) as soon as 6ir6umstan6es ne6essitate it. ;he 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment :as 6onstituted the /ud-e of those 6ir6umstan6es. =hat the 2imit of that /urisdi6tion :as to be :as in unmista.ab2e terms ena6ted in Se6tion ( of the A6t. It :as not 2eft to the :i22 of the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to 6onfer on that 6ourt any pe6uniary /urisdi6tion that it 2i.ed to 6onfer upon it. It :ou2d be by for6e of the 2e-is2ati8e po:er of Se6tion ( that the City Ci8i2 Court :i22 be 8ested :ith enhan6ed /urisdi6tion but that 8estin- 6annot ta.e p2a6e ti22 a notifi6ation is issued by the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment. It is 6onditiona2 on that e8ent on2y. (9. 4or the reasons -i8en abo8e0 in my /ud-ment0 the ?i-h Court :as in error in ho2din- that Se6tion ( of the City Ci8i2 Court A6t :as 8oid and u2tra 8ires the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature. In this 8ie: the notifi6ation issued under Se6tion ( must be he2d to be effe6ti8e. ;hat bein- so0 it is unne6essary to -o into the <uestion raised by the 2earned Attorney7@enera2 that assumin- that Se6tion ( of the A6t :as de2e-ation of 2e-is2ati8e po:er0 it :as sti22 8a2id. 5). ;he neAt <uestion to de6ide is :hether the A6t is u2tra 8ires the Bombay 'e-is2ature. In order to appre6iate &r. Seer8aiDs 6ontention on this point it is ne6essary to set out some of the pro8isions of the @o8ernment of Indian A6t0 19$50 re2e8ant to the en<uiry. ;hese are 6ontained in Se6tion 1))0 and in the Se8enth S6hedu2e in entries *9 and 5$ of 'ist I0 entries 1 and * of 'ist II0 and entries ( and 15 of 'ist III. ;hey are in these terms :7 Se6tion 1))"1# Not:ithstandin- anythin- in the t:o neAt su66eedin- sub7se6tions0 the 4edera2 'e-is2ature0 has0 and a 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature has not0 po:er to ma.e 2a:s :ith respe6t to any of the matters enumerated in 'ist I in the Se8enth S6hedu2e to this A6t "hereinafter 6a22ed the D4edera2 'e-is2ati8e 'istD#. "*# Not:ithstandin- anythin- in the neAt su66eedin- sub7se6tion0 the 4edera2 'e-is2ature0 and0 sub/e6t to the pre6edin- sub7se6tion0 a 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature a2so0 ha8e po:er to ma.e 2a:s :ith respe6t to any of the matters enumerated in 'ist III in the said S6hedu2e "hereinafter 6a22ed the DCon6urrent 'e-is2ati8e 'istD#. "$# Sub/e6t to the t:o pre6edin- sub7se6tions0 the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature has0 and the 4edera2 'e-is2ature has not0 po:er to ma.e 2a:s for a 1ro8in6e or any part thereof :ith respe6t to any of the matters enumerated in 'ist II In the said S6hedu2e "hereinafter 6a22ed the D1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ati8e 'istD#.

"(# ;he 4edera2 'e-is2ature has po:er to ma.e 2a:s :ith respe6t to matters enumerated in the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ati8e 'ist eA6ept for a 1ro8in6e or any part thereof. 51. 'ist I. *$. Che<ues0 bi22s of eA6han-e0 promissory notes and other 2i.e instruments. 55. Jurisdi6tion and po:ers of a22 6ourts0 eA6epts the 4edera2 Court0 :ith respe6t to any of the matters in this 2ist and0 to su6h eAtent as is eApress2y authori5ed by 1art I> of this A6t0 the en2ar-ement of the appe22ate /urisdi6tion of the 4edera2 Court0 and the 6onferrin- thereon of supp2ementa2 po:ers. 'ist II. 1. 1ub2i6 order "but not in62udin- the use of ?is &a/estyDs na8a20 mi2itary or air for6es in aid of the 6i8i2 po:er#! the administration of /usti6e! 6onstitution and or-ani5ation of a22 6ourts0 eA6ept the 4edera2 Court0 and fees ta.en therein! pre8enti8e detention for reasons 6onne6ted :ith the maintenan6e of pub2i6 order! persons sub/e6t to su6h detention. *. Jurisdi6tion and po:ers of a22 6ourts eA6ept the 4edera2 Court0 :ith respe6t to any of the matters in this 2ist! pro6edure in Rent and Re8enue Courts. 5*. 'ist III. (. Ci8i2 1ro6edure0 in62udin- the 'a: of 'imitation and a22 matters in62uded it the Code of Ci8i2 1ro6edure at the date of the passin- of this A6t! the re6o8ery in a @o8ernorDs 1ro8in6e or a Chief CommissionerDs 1ro8in6e of 62aims in respe6t or taAes and other pub2i6 demands0 in62udin- arrears of 2and re8enue and sums re6o8erab2e as su6h0 arisin- outside that 1ro8in6e. 15. Jurisdi6tion and po:ers of a22 6ourts eA6ept the 4edera2 Court0 :ith respe6t to any of the matters in this 2ist. 5$. &r. Seer8ai 6ontends that Se6tion $ of the impu-ned A6t is 8oid be6ause it dire6t2y tren6hes on the eA62usi8e 2e-is2ati8e po:ers of the 6enter 6onferred on it by 'ist I of the Se8enth S6hedu2e inasmu6h as it 6onfers /urisdi6tion on the ne: 6ourt in respe6t to a22 6ases of a 6i8i2 nature. ;he eApression Da22 6ases of a 6i8i2 natureD presumab2y brin-s :ithin the ambit of the A6t suits in respe6t to sub/e6ts 6ontained in 'ist I. ?e ur-ed that the three simi2ar entries in the three 2ists0 name2y0 entry 5$ in 'ist I0 entry * in 'ist II and entry 15 in 'ists III indi6ated that in respe6t to the sub/e6ts 6o8ered by the three fie2ds of 2e-is2ation demar6ated for the t:o 'e-is2atures the 1ar2iament empo:ered ea6h of them respe6ti8e2y to ma.e 2a:s in respe6t to /urisdi6tion and po:er of 6ourts and that in 8ie: of the pro8isions of Se6tion 1)) of the Constitution A6t the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature had no po:er to ma.e any 2a: 6onferrin- /urisdi6tion on 6ourts in respe6t to sub/e6ts 6o8ered by 'ist I. In other :ords0 the 4edera2 'e-is2ature a2one 6ou2d 2e-is2ate on the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of a 6ourt in re-ard to the sub/e6ts in 'ist I. Simi2ar2y in respe6t of sub/e6ts 6ontained in the 1ro8in6ia2 'ist0 /urisdi6tion and po:er of 6ourts 6ou2d on2y be determined by a 2a: ena6ted by the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature and that in respe6t of items 6ontained in 'ist III0 both 'e-is2atures 6ou2d ma.e 2a:s on the sub/e6t of /urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts. It :as said that the eA6eptions and the pro8iso to Se6tion $ of the City Ci8i2 A6t in 62ear terms dis62osed that /urisdi6tion in respe6t to the sub/e6ts on :hi6h the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature had no 6ompeten6e to 2e-is2ate0 :as a2so 6onferred on the ne: 6ourt. Se6tion 1* of the A6t by :hi6h the ?i-h Court :as depri8ed of a22 /urisdi6tion on matters that fe22 :ithin the /urisdi6tion of the City Ci8i2 Court :as assai2ed on simi2ar -rounds. In re-ard to the 2e-is2ati8e po:er 6onferred under entry I of 'ist II on the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature it :as 6ontended that this :ide po:er stood 2imited by the three entries abo8e mentioned and that under it 2e-is2ation 6ou2d on2y be made to the eAtent of estab2ishin- and or-ani5in- 6ourts but no 2e-is2ation under it :as permissib2e in respe6t to the po:ers of those 6ourts. 5(. ;he 2earned Attorney7@enera20 on the other hand0 6ontends that the A6t is intra 8ires the Bombay 'e-is2ature under entry 1 of 'ist II and under entries ( and 15 of 'ist III0 it ha8in- re6ei8ed the assent of the @o8ernor7@enera2. It :as ur-ed that the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature had eA62usi8e 2e-is2ati8e po:er on the sub/e6t of administration of /usti6e and 6onstitution and or-ani5ation of a22 6ourts and that this po:er ne6essari2y in62uded the po:er to ma.e a 2a: in respe6t to the /urisdi6tion of 6ourts estab2ished and 6onstituted by it and that the impu-ned 2e-is2ation in pith and substan6e bein- on the sub/e6t of administration of /usti6e0 it 6ou2d not be he2d u2tra 8ires e8en if it tren6hed on the fie2d of 2e-is2ation of the 4edera2 'e-is2ature. In re-ard to entry 5$ of 'ist I0 entry * of 'ist II and entry 15 of 'ist III of the

S6hedu2e0 it :as said that these 6onferred 2e-is2ati8e po:er on the respe6ti8e 'e-is2atures to 6onfer spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion on estab2ished 6ourts in respe6t of parti6u2ar sub/e6ts on2y if it :as 6onsidered ne6essary to do so. In other :ords0 the ar-ument :as that the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment 6ou2d 6reate a 6ourt of -enera2 /urisdi6tion 2e-is2atin- under entry 1 of 'ist II and that it :as then open to both the Centra2 and the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2atures to 6onfer spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion on 6ourts in respe6t to parti6u2ar matters that :ere 6o8ered by the respe6ti8e 2ists. In my opinion0 the 6ontention of the 2earned Attorney7@enera2 that the A6t is intra 8ires the Bombay 'e-is2ature under entry 1 of 'ist II is sound and I am in respe6tfu2 a-reement :ith the 8ie: eApressed by the Chief Justi6e of Bombay on this point in &u26hand Gundanma2 Ja-tiani 8. Raman ?ira2a2 Shah 51 Bom. '.R. 9 . ;he 2earned Chief Justi6e :hen dea2in- :ith this point said as fo22o:s :7 DIf0 therefore0 the A6t dea2s :ith administration of /usti6e and 6onstitutes a 6ourt for that purpose and 6onfers ordinary 6i8i2 /urisdi6tion upon it0 in my opinion0 the 2e-is2ation 62ear2y fa22s :ithin the 2e-is2ati8e 6ompeten6e of the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature and is 6o8ered by item 1 of 'ist II of S6hedu2e B. ;hat item eApress2y 6onfers upon the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature the po:er to 2e-is2ate :ith re-ard to the administration of /usti6e and the 6onstitution and or-ani5ation of a22 6ourts eA6ept the 4edera2 Court. It is diffi6u2t to ima-ine ho: a 6ourt 6an be 6onstituted :ithout any /urisdi6tion0 and if 1ar2iament has made the administration of /usti6e eA62usi8e2y upon the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature the po:er to 6onstitute and or-ani5e a22 6ourts0 it must fo22o:0 that the po:er is -i8en to the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to 6onfer the ordinary 6i8i2 /urisdi6tion upon the 6ourts to 6arry on :ith their :or.. Item * of 'ist II dea2s :ith /urisdi6tion and po:er of a22 6ourts eA6ept the 4edera2 Court :ith respe6t to any of the matters in this 2ist and &r. &istreeDs ar-ument is that item 1 is 2imited and 6onditioned by item * and :hat he 6ontends is that the on2y po:er that the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature has is undoubted2y to 6reate 6ourts0 but to 6onfer upon them on2y su6h /urisdi6tion as re2ates to items 6omprised in 'ist II. I am unab2e to a66ept that 6ontention or that interpretation of 'ist II in S6hedu2e B. Ca6h item in 'ist II is an independent item0 supp2ementary of ea6h other0 and not 2imited by ea6h other in any :ay. Item 1 ha8in- -i8en the -enera2 po:er to the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature :ith re-ard to a22 matters of administration of /usti6e and :ith re-ard to the 6onstitution and or-ani5ation of a22 6ourts0 further -i8es the po:er to the 'e-is2ature to 6onfer spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion0 if needs be0 and spe6ia2 po:er0 if needs be0 to these 6ourts :ith re-ard to any of the items mentioned in 'ist II. It is impossib2e to read item * as 6urtai2in- and restri6tin- the 8ery :ide po:er :ith re-ard to administration of /usti6e -i8en to the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature under item 1. Simi2ar2y in 'ist I the 4edera2 'e-is2ature has been -i8en the po:er under item 5$ to 6onfer /urisdi6tion and po:er upon any 6ourt :ith re-ard to matters fa22in- under any of the items in that 2ist0 and0 therefore0 it :ou2d be 6ompetent to the 4edera2 'e-is2ature to 6onfer any spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion or po:er :hi6h it thou-ht proper upon any 6ourt :ith re-ard to suits on promissory notes or matters arisin- under the Ne-otiab2e Instruments A6t....D. It seems to me that the 2e-is2ati8e po:er 6onferred on the 1ro8in6ia2 2e-is2ature by item 1 of 'ist II has been 6onferred by use of 2an-ua-e :hi6h is of the :idest amp2itude "administration of /usti6e and 6onstitution and or-ani5ation of a22 6ourts#. It :as not denied that the phrase emp2oyed :ou2d in62ude :ithin its ambit 2e-is2ati8e po:er in respe6t to /urisdi6tion and po:er of 6ourts estab2ished for the purpose of administration of /usti6e. &oreo8er0 the :ords appear to be suffi6ient to 6onfer upon the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature the ri-ht to re-u2ate and pro8ide for the :ho2e ma6hinery 6onne6ted :ith the administration of /usti6e in the 1ro8in6e. 'e-is2ation on the sub/e6t of administration of /usti6e and 6onstitution of 6ourts of /usti6e :ou2d be ineffe6ti8e and in6omp2ete un2ess and unti2 the 6ourts estab2ished under it :ere 62othed :ith the /urisdi6tion and po:er to hear and de6ide 6auses. It is diffi6u2t to 8isua2ise a statute dea2in- :ith administration of /usti6e and the sub/e6t of 6onstitution and or-ani5ation of 6ourts :ithout a definition of the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of those 6ourts0 as :ithout su6h definition su6h a statute :ou2d be 2i.e a body :ithout a sou2. ;o ena6t it :ou2d be an id2e forma2ity. By its o:n for6e it :ou2d not ha8e po:er to 62othe a 6ourt :ith any po:er or /urisdi6tion :hatsoe8er. It :ou2d ha8e to 2oo. to an outside authority and to another statute to be6ome effe6ti8e. Su6h an ena6tment is0 so far as I .no:0 un.no:n to 2e-is2ati8e pra6ti6e and history. ;he 1ar2iament by ma.in- administration of /usti6e a pro8in6ia2 sub/e6t 6ou2d not be 6onsidered to ha8e 6onferred po:er of 2e-is2ation on the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature of an ineffe6ti8e and use2ess nature. 4o22o:in- the 2ine of ar-ument ta.en by &r. &istree before the ?i-h Court of Bombay0 &r. Seer8ai strenuous2y 6ontended that the on2y 2e-is2ati8e po:er 6onferred on the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature by entry 1 of 'ist II :as in respe6t to the estab2ishment of a 6ourt and its 6onstitution and that no 2e-is2ati8e po:er :as -i8en to it to ma.e a 2a: in respe6t to /urisdi6tion and po:er of the 6ourt estab2ished by it.

55. ;he ar-ument0 2o-i6a22y ana2ysed0 6omes to this : that su6h a statute :i22 6ontain the name of the 6ourt0 the number of its /ud-es0 the method of their appointment0 the sa2aries to be dra:n by them and it :i22 then stop short at that sta-e and :i22 not in62ude any pro8ision definin- the po:ers of the tribuna2 or its other /urisdi6tion and that the 6ourt so 6onstituted 6ou2d a6<uire /urisdi6tion on2y :hen a 2a: :as made re2atin- to its /urisdi6tion and po:ers by the 4edera2 'e-is2ature under entry 5$ of 'ist I0 by the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature under entry * of 'ist II and by either 'e-is2ature under entry 15 of 'ist III. ;he 2earned 6ounse2 6ontended that this pe6u2iar resu2t :as the natura2 6onse<uen6e of a federa2 6onstitution :ith di8ided po:ers0 and that entries 5$0 * and 15 of the three respe6ti8e 2ists 2imit and 6urtai2 the :ide po:er 6onferred on the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature by item 1 of 'ist II. It is diffi6u2t to a66ede to this 6ontention be6ause it :ou2d amount to ho2din- that thou-ht the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature under item * of 'ist II has been -i8en the :idest po:er of 2e-is2ation in the matter of administration of /usti6e and 6onstitution and or-ani5ation of 6ourts and thou-h that fie2d has been demar6ated for it as its eA62usi8e fie2d of 2e-is2ation0 yet a22 that it 6an do0 a6tin- :ithin that fie2d0 is mere2y to estab2ish a 6ourt :ithout any 6ompeten6y to fun6tion and that in 6an on2y be6ome an effe6ti8e instrument for administerin- /usti6e by 2a:s ena6ted e2se:here or under po:ers 6onferred under other items of the different 2ists. I am unab2e to read items 5$0 * and 15 of the three respe6ti8e 2ists as imposin- 2imitations on 2e-is2ati8e po:er 6onferred on the 1ro8in6e by item 1 of 'ist II. Su6h a 6onstru6tion of the A6t :ou2d not on2y do 8io2en6e to the p2ain 2an-ua-e of item 1 of 'ist II but :ou2d be 6ontrary to its s6heme under :hi6h administration of /usti6e :as made a pro8in6ia2 sub/e6t. It is si-nifi6ant that no other 'e-is2ature has been -i8en the po:er to brininto eAisten6e a 6ourt. A 6ourt :ithout po:ers and /urisdi6tion :ou2d be an anoma2y as it :ou2d not be ab2e to dis6har-e the fun6tion of administration of /usti6e and the statute estab2ishin- su6h a 6ourt 6ou2d not be said to be a 2a: on the sub/e6t of administration of /usti6e. It is a fundamenta2 prin6ip2e of the 6onstru6tion of a 6onstitution that e8erythin- ne6essary for the eAer6ise of po:ers is in62uded in the -rant of po:er. C8erythin- ne6essary for the effe6ti8e eAe6ution of po:er of 2e-is2ation must therefore be ta.en to be 6onferred by the 6onstitution :ith that po:er. It may be obser8ed that in eAer6ise of 2e-is2ati8e po:er under item 1 of 'ist II a 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6an a2ter the 6onstitution of the eAistin- 6ourts0 6an abo2ish them0 reor-ani5e them and 6an estab2ish ne: 6ourts. If the 6onstru6tion 6ontended for by &r. Seer8ai is a66epted0 then the eAistin- 6ourts re7estab2ished or re7or-anised by the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature :ou2d not be ab2e to fun6tion ti22 2e-is2ation under item 5$ of 'ist I0 under item * of 'ist II or item 15 of 'ist III a2so simu2taneous2y :as made. I do not thin. that su6h a resu2t :as in the 6ontemp2ation of 1ar2iament. 5 . &r. Seer8ai :ith some for6e ar-ued that if fu22 effe6t is -i8en to the 6omprehensi8e phraseo2o-y emp2oyed in item 1 of 'ist II0 then it :ou2d resu2t in ma.in- the pro8isions of item * of 'ist II0 of item 5$ of 'ist I and item 15 of 'ist III nu-atory in other :ords0 if the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6ou2d brin- into eAisten6e a 6ourt of -enera2 /urisdi6tion :hi6h 6ou2d hear a22 6auses on sub/e6ts 6on6ernin- :hi6h 2e-is2ati8e po:er :as di8ided in the three 2ists0 then the 6onferment of 2e-is2ati8e po:er on the 4edera2 'e-is2ature under item 5$ of 'ist I0 on the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature under item * of 'ist II and on both the 'e-is2atures under item 15 of 'ist III :as purpose2ess. In my opinion0 this ar-ument is not a 8a2id one and the premises on :hi6h it is based are not sound. ;he three 2ists of sub/e6ts 6ontained in S6hedu2e B ha8e not been dra:n up :ith any s6ientifi6 pre6ision and the 8arious items in them o8er2ap. ;he point .ept in 8ie: in dra:in- up the 2ists :as to see that a22 possib2e po:er of 2e-is2ation :as in62uded :ithin their ambit. By ma.in- administration of /usti6e a pro8in6ia2 sub/e6t and by 6onferrin- on the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature po:er to 2e-is2ate on this sub/e6t and a2so on the sub/e6t of 6onstitution and or-ani5ation of 6ourts0 1ar2iament 6onferred on that 'e-is2ature an effe6ti8e po:er :hi6h in62uded :ithin its ambit the 2a:7ma.in- po:er on the sub/e6t of /urisdi6tion of 6ourts. ;he 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6ou2d therefore brin- into eAisten6e a 6ourt :ith -enera2 /urisdi6tion to administer /usti6e on a22 matters 6omin- before it :ithin 6ertain territoria2 and pe6uniary 2imits0 sub/e6t of 6ourse to the 6ondition that su6h -enera2 /urisdi6tion may be eApress2y or imp2ied2y ta.en a:ay the pro8isions of other 2a:s. ;he 1ar2iament ha8in- di8ided the fie2d of 2e-is2ation bet:een the t:o 'e-is2atures0 natura22y thou-ht that as a 6oro22ary or a ne6essary 6onse<uen6e of this di8ision of 2e-is2ati8e po:er it :as ne6essary to pro8ide by :ay of a 6omp2ementary pro8ision a 2e-is2ati8e po:er spe6ifi6a22y on the t:o 'e-is2atures in respe6t to the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts on sub/e6ts :hi6h :ere :ithin their eA62usi8e 2e-is2ati8e fie2d. If a 'e-is2ature 6ou2d eA62usi8e2y 2e-is2ate in respe6t to parti6u2ar sub/e6ts0 as a ne6essary 6onse<uen6e it shou2d a2so ha8e the po:er to 2e-is2ate in respe6t to /urisdi6tion and po:er of the 6ourt dea2in- :ith that sub/e6t. It is this po:er that has been 6onferred by entries 5$0 * and 15 abo8e mentioned on the t:o

'e-is2atures. Cntries (* and 99 of 'ist I0 entries $B and (* of 'ist II and entries *5 and $ of 'ist III are of a simi2ar 6onse<uentia2 6hara6ter. ;he respe6ti8e 'e-is2atures are therefore 6ompetent to 6onfer spe6ia2 po:ers on 6ourts and 6an 6reate spe6ia2 /urisdi6tions a6tin- under those po:ers in respe6t to their di8ided fie2ds of 2e-is2ation. Instan6es of 6onferment of po:ers and /urisdi6tion on 6ourts to hear 6ases on parti6u2ar sub/e6ts :ere :e22 .no:n to 1ar2iament. Su6h po:ers had been 6onferred on different 6ourts in respe6t of testamentary and intestate /urisdi6tion0 admira2ty /urisdi6tion0 under the Indian Companies A6t0 under the Su66ession A6t0 @uardians and =ards A6t and under the 8arious Rent A6ts and A6ts dea2in:ith re2ief of indebtedness. In 8ie: of the di8ision of po:ers in respe6t to different sub/e6ts0 po:er :as -i8en under item 5$ of 'ist I0 item * of 'ist II and item 15 of 'ist III to the different 'e-is2atures :hen dea2in- :ith those sub/e6ts a2so to 2e-is2ate on the <uestion of /urisdi6tion and po:ers of the 6ourts. ;his 6onferment of 2e-is2ati8e po:ers to 6reate spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion in respe6t to parti6u2ar sub/e6ts does not in any :ay 6urtai2 the 2e-is2ati8e po:er 6onferred on the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature under item 1 of 'ist II. As soon as spe6ia2 2e-is2ati8e po:er under item 5$ of 'ist I0 under item * of 'ist II and item 15 of 'ist III is eAer6ised0 the 6auses that arise in respe6t to those sub/e6ts :ou2d then on2y be heard in /urisdi6tions 6reated by those statutes and not in the 6ourts of -enera2 /urisdi6tion entrusted :ith the norma2 administration of /usti6e. In the 2an-ua-e of Se6tion 9 of the Code of Ci8i2 1ro6edure0 /urisdi6tion of the -enera2 6ourts :i22 then be6ome barred by those statutes. 5B. I am therefore of the opinion that under item 1 of 'ist II the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature has 6omp2ete 6ompeten6e not on2y to estab2ish 6ourts for the administration of /usti6e but to 6onfer on them /urisdi6tion to hear a22 6auses of a 6i8i2 nature0 and that this po:er is not 6urtai2ed or 2imited by po:er of 2e-is2ation 6onferred on the t:o 'e-is2atures under items 5$0 * and 15 of the three 2ists. %n the other hand0 these three items 6onfer on the respe6ti8e 'e-is2atures po:er to 2e-is2ate :hen dea2in- :ith parti6u2ar sub/e6ts :ithin their eA62usi8e 2e-is2ati8e fie2d to ma.e 2a:s in respe6t of /urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourts that :i22 be 6ompetent to hear 6auses re2atin- to those sub/e6ts! in other :ords0 this is a po:er of 6reatinspe6ia2 /urisdi6tions on2y. ;his interpretation of the entries in the 2ists is not on2y in a66ordan6e :ith the s6heme of the statute but it harmoni5es the different entries in the 2ists and does not ma.e any of them nu-atory and ineffe6ti8e. ;he interpretation 6ontended for by &r. Seer8ai :ou2d redu6e the po:er of the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature under item 1 to a2most nothin-ness. 59. ;he 6ruA of the 6ase is :hether item 1 of 'ist II shou2d be -i8en a 2imited 6onstru6tion :hi6h ma.es it nu-atory or :hether a 2imited 6onstru6tion is to be p2a6ed on items 5$0 * and 15 of the three 2ists. I ha8e no hesitation in ho2din- that both in the 2i-ht of prin6ip2es of 6onstru6tion of statutes and prin6ip2es of 2e-is2ation0 the 6ourse to adopt is the one that I ha8e indi6ated abo8e. 59. 4ina22y0 it :as 6ontended that Se6tion 1* of the A6t in any 6ase :as a 8oid pie6e of 2e-is2ation as it depri8ed the ?i-h Court of its /urisdi6tion e8en in respe6t to sub/e6ts 6ontained in 'ist I of the Se8enth S6hedu2e. In 8ie: of the 6onstru6tion that I ha8e p2a6ed on item 1 of 'ist II this ar-ument has no for6e. If the 'e-is2ature has po:er to brin- into eAisten6e a 6ourt and 6onfer /urisdi6tion and po:er on it0 a fortiori it has po:er to ta.e a:ay the /urisdi6tion and po:er that a2ready eAist in other 6ourts. &oreo8er0 the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t in Se6tion $ has eA6epted from the /urisdi6tion of the ne: 6ourt a22 6ases :hi6h the ?i-h Court 6an hear under any spe6ia2 2a:. Spe6ia2 2a: has been defined as a 2a: app2i6ab2e to a parti6u2ar sub/e6t. If under 'ist 1 of the Se8enth S6hedu2e the 4edera2 'e-is2ature by any 2a: determines that a 6ase has to be heard by the ?i-h Court0 Se6tion 5 :i22 not affe6t the /urisdi6tion of that 6ourt in any manner :hatsoe8er. ). ;he resu2t0 therefore0 is that the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t is a statute :hi6h is :ho22y :ithin the 2e-is2ati8e fie2d of the 1ro8in6e under item 1 of 'ist II and its 8a2idity 6annot be affe6ted e8en if it in6identa22y tren6hes on other fie2ds of 2e-is2ation. It is not a statute dea2in- :ith any of the sub/e6ts mentioned in 'ist I and therefore it 6annot be said that the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature has in any :ay usurped the po:er demar6ated for the 6enter. In 8ie: of this 6on62usion I thin. it unne6essary to pronoun6e any opinion on the other points raised by the 2earned Attorney7@enera2. 1. 4or the reasons -i8en abo8e I a22o: the appea2 preferred by the @o8ernment of Bombay and set aside the de6ision of the ?i-h Court ho2din- that Se6tion ( of the City Ci8i2 Court A6t ">' of 19(9# is 8oid. In the 6ir6umstan6es of the 6ase I 2ea8e the parties to bear their o:n 6osts of the appea2.

&u.her/ea0 J. *. In my opinion this appea2 shou2d be a22o:ed and I 6on6ur substantia22y in the 2ine of reasoninadopted by my 2earned brother &aha/an J. in his /ud-ment. ?a8in- re-ard to the 6onstitutiona2 importan6e of the <uestions raised in this 6ase0 I :ou2d desire to add some obser8ations of mine o:n. $. ;here are rea22y t:o <uestions :hi6h re<uire 6onsideration in this appea2. ;he first is :hether Se6tion ( of the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t0 19(90 is 8oid and inoperati8e by reason of its amountin- to a de2e-ation of 2e-is2ati8e po:ers by the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment of Bombay. ;he Bombay ?i-h Court has ans:ered this <uestion in the affirmati8e and it is entire2y upon this -round that the /ud-ment appea2ed a-ainst is based. ;he property of this de6ision has been 6ha22en-ed by the 2earned Attorney7@enera2 :ho appeared on beha2f of the State of Bombay in support of this appea2. %n the other hand0 &r. Seer8ai0 appearin- on beha2f of the respondents0 has not on2y attempted to repe2 the 6ontention ad8an6ed by the 2earned Attorney7@enera20 but has not sou-ht to support the /ud-ment appea2ed a-ainst on another and a more 6omprehensi8e -round :hi6h0 if a66epted0 :ou2d ma.e the entire Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t a 8oid pie6e of 2e-is2ation0 as bein- an en6roa6hment by the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature upon the fie2d of 2e-is2ation reser8ed for the 6enter under 'ist I of S6hedu2e B to the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$5. (. As re-ards the first point0 I a-ree that the 6ontention of the appe22ant is sound and must pre8ai2. I ha8e no hesitation in ho2din- that the 'e-is2ature in empo:erin- the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to in8est the City Court0 by notifi6ation0 :ith /urisdi6tion of su6h 8a2ue not eA6eedin- Rs. *50))) as may be spe6ified in the Notifi6ation0 has not de2e-ated its 2e-is2ati8e authority to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment. ;he pro8ision re2ates on2y to the enfor6ement of the po2i6y :hi6h the 'e-is2ature itse2f has 2aid do:n. ;he 2a: :as fu22 and 6omp2ete :hen in 2eft the 2e-is2ati8e 6hamber permittin- the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to in6rease the pe6uniary /urisdi6tion of the City Court up to a 6ertain amount :hi6h :as spe6ified in the Statute itse2f. =hat the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment is to do is not to ma.e any 2a:! it has to eAe6ute the :i22 of the 'e-is2ature by determinin- the time at :hi6h and the eAtend to :hi6h0 :ithin the 2imits fiAed by the 'e-is2ature0 the /urisdi6tion of the 6ourt0 shou2d be eAtended. ;his is a spe6ies of 6onditiona2 2e-is2ation :hi6h 6omes dire6t2y :ithin the prin6ip2e enun6iated by the Judi6ia2 Committee in ;he Hueen 8. Burah 5 I.A. 1B90 :here the ta.in- effe6t of a parti6u2ar pro8ision of 2a: is made to depend upon determination of 6ertain fa6ts and 6onditions by an outside authority. 5. ;he 2earned Jud-es of the Bombay ?i-h Court in 6omin- to their de6ision on the point seem to ha8e been inf2uen6ed to some eAtent by the pronoun6ement of the 4edera2 Court in Jatindranath @upta 8. 1ro8in6e of Bihar +19(9, 4.C.R. 59 0 and the 2earned Counse2 for the respondents natura22y p2a6ed re2ian6e upon it. I :as myse2f a party to the ma/ority de6ision in that 6ase and eApressed my 8ie:s in a separate /ud-ment. I do not thin. that there is anythin- in my /ud-ment :hi6h 2ends support to the 6ontention :hi6h the respondents ha8e put for:ard. I stated eApress2y in 6ourse of my /ud-ment on the authority of the :e22 .no:n Ameri6an de6ision in 'o6.eDs appea2 +1$ Ameri6an Reports B1 , that a 2e-is2ature may not de2e-ate its po:ers to ma.e 2a: but Dit 6an ma.e a 2a: to de2e-ate a po:er to determine some fa6t or state of thin-s upon :hi6h the 2a: ma.es or intends to ma.e its o:n a6tion dependD! and that the inhibition a-ainst de2e-ation does not eAtend to 2e-is2ation :hi6h is 6omp2ete in itse2f0 thou-h its operation is made to depend upon 6ontin-en6ies the as6ertainment of :hi6h is 2eft to an eAterna2 body. . ;he sub/e6t matter of dispute in the Bihar 6ase :as the 8a2idity of a pro8iso en-rafted upon Se6tion 10 sub7se6tion "$# of the Bihar &aintenan6e of 1ub2i6 %rder A6t. ;he sub7se6tion 2aid do:n that the A6t :ou2d remain in for6e for a period of one year from the date of its 6ommen6ement. ;he pro8iso then added Dthat the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment may0 by notifi6ation on a reso2ution passed by the Bihar 'e-is2ati8e Assemb2y and a-reed to by the Bihar 'e-is2ati8e Coun6i2 dire6t that this A6t sha22 remain in for6e for a further period of one year :ith su6h modifi6ations0 if any0 as may be spe6ified in the notifi6ation.D &r. Seer8ai :ou2d ha8e been probab2y ri-ht in in8o.in- the de6ision in that 6ase as an authority in his fa8our if the pro8iso simp2y empo:ered the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment0 upon 6omp2ian6e :ith the 6onditions pres6ribed therein0 to eAtend the duration of the A6t for a further period of one year0 the maAimum period bein- fiAed by the 'e-is2ature itse2f. ;he pro8iso0 ho:e8er0 :ent further and

authorised the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to de6ide at the end of the year not mere2y :hether the A6t shou2d be 6ontinued for another year but :hether the A6t itse2f :as to be modified in any :ay or not. It :as 6on6eded by the 2earned Counse2 appearin- for the 1ro8in6e of Bihar that to authorise another body to modify a statute amounts to in8estin- that body :ith 2e-is2ati8e po:ers. =hat the 2earned Counse2 6ontended for0 :as that the po:er of modifi6ation :as se8erab2e from the po:er of eAtendin- the duration of the statute and the in8a2idity of one part of the pro8iso shou2d not affe6t its other part. ;o this 6ontention my ans:er :as that the t:o pro8isions :ere inter7re2ated in su6h a manner in the statute that one 6ou2d not be se8ered from the other. %b8ious2y0 the fa6ts of this 6ase are <uite different0 and a22 that I need say :ith re-ard to my pronoun6ement in Jatindranath @uptaDs 6ase is that the prin6ip2e upon :hi6h that 6ase :as de6ided is not app2i6ab2e and 6annot be attra6ted0 to the present 6ase. B. I may state here that a <uestion in the broad form as to :hether a 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature eAer6isin- its 2e-is2ati8e po:ers :ithin the 2imits pres6ribed by the Imperia2 1ar2iament in the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$50 6ou2d de2e-ate its 2e-is2ati8e fun6tions in any manner to an outside authority as it thou-ht proper0 :as neither raised nor de6ided in Jatindranath @uptaDs 6ase. ;he 2earned Attorney7@enera2 has not 8ery proper2y in8ited any fina2 de6ision on that point in the present 6ase and I :ou2d refrain from eApressinany opinion upon it. 9. ;he se6ond point appears to be of some 6omp2eAity and it :as de6ided by the Bombay ?i-h Court ad8erse2y to the respondents on the basis of an ear2ier pronoun6ement of the same Court in &u26hand 8. Raman 51 Bom. '.R. 9 . ;he ar-uments of &r. Seer8ai are rea22y dire6ted at assai2in- the 6orre6tness of this ear2ier de6ision :hi6h the 2earned Jud-es he2d to be bindin- on them in the present 6ase. ;he 6ontention of &r. Seer8ai0 in substan6e0 is0 that the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t0 :hi6h is a pie6e of pro8in6ia2 2e-is2ation0 is u2tra 8ires the 2e-is2ature inasmu6h as it purports to endo: the City Court0 :hi6h it brin-s into eAisten6e0 :ith /urisdi6tion to re6ei8e0 try and dispose of Da22 suits and other pro6eedin-s of a 6i8i2 natureD :ith 6ertain eA6eptions that are spe6ified in the different sub7se6tions of Se6tion $. =hat is said is that the eApression Da22 suits of a 6i8i2 natureD is :ide enou-h to in62ude suits in respe6t to matters spe6ified in 'ist I of the Se8enth S6hedu2e of the Constitution A6t :ith re-ard to :hi6h the Centra2 'e-is2ature a2one is 6ompetent to 6onfer /urisdi6tion on 6ourts under entry 5$ of the said 'ist. It is ar-ued that so far as the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature a2one is 6on6erned0 it may empo:er a22 6ourts "eA6ept the 4edera2 Court# :ith /urisdi6tion in respe6t to any of the matters in the 1ro8in6ia2 'ist. And it may a2so be 6apab2e of eAer6isin- 2i.e po:ers in re-ard to sub/e6ts enumerated in the Con6urrent 'ist as pro8ided for in Arti62e 15 of 'ist III0 sub/e6t to the 6onditions 2aid do:n in Se6tion 1)B of the A6t. But as the s6ope of Se6tion $ of the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t is not 2imited to matters in 'ists II and III on2y and its 2an-ua-e 6an embra6e sub/e6ts 6omin- under 'ist I as :e220 and furthermore as the different sub/e6ts both :ithin and outside the pro8in6ia2 and 6on6urrent fie2ds dea2t :ith by Se6tion $ are ineAtri6ab2y intert:ined and not 6apab2e of se8eran6e or demar6ation0 the :ho2e A6t must be he2d to be u2tra 8ires. 9. In ans:er to this0 it has been ur-ed by the 2earned Attorney7@enera2 that amon-st the sub/e6ts in62uded in Item 1 of the 1ro8in6ia2 'ist are Dthe administration of /usti6e and 6onstitution and or-ani5ation of a22 6ourts eA6ept the 4edera2 CourtD0 and these eApressions ob8ious2y in62ude :ithin their ambit the 6onferrin- of -enera2 /urisdi6tion to hear and de6ide 6ases upon 6ourts :hi6h are set up by the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature0 and :ithout :hi6h they 6annot fun6tion as 6ourts at a22. It is said that Item * of the 1ro8in6ia2 'ist :hi6h mentions D/urisdi6tion and po:ers of a22 6ourts eA6ept the 4edera2 Court :ith respe6t to any of the matters in this 'istD does not in any :ay 2imit or 6urtai2 the ordinary 6onnotation of the eApressions Dadministration of /usti6e and 6onstitution of 6ourtsD as used in Item I of the said 'ist referred to abo8e. B). It 6annot be disputed that the :ords Dadministration of /usti6eD o66urrin- in Item 1 of the 1ro8in6ia2 'ist0 un2ess they are 2imited in any :ay0 are of suffi6ient amp2itude to 6onfer upon the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature the ri-ht to re-u2ate and pro8ide for the :ho2e ma6hinery 6onne6ted :ith the administration of /usti6e. Se6tion 9* of the North Ameri6a A6t dea2s :ith the eA62usi8e po:ers of the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2atures and 62ause "1(# of the se6tion spea.s of Dthe administration of /usti6e in the 1ro8in6esD as in62udin- Dthe 6onstitution0 maintenan6e and or-ani5ation of 1ro8in6ia2 Courts.D In interpretin- this pro8ision of the 6onstitution it has been he2d in North Ameri6a that the :ords D6onstitution0 maintenan6e and or-ani5ation of 6ourtsD p2ain2y in62ude the po:er to define the /urisdi6tion of su6h 6ourts territoria22y

as :e22 as in other respe6ts. +Re County Courts of British Co2umbia *1 S.C.R. (( &r. Seer8ai ar-ues that this mi-ht be the norma2 meanin- of the :ords if they stood a2one. But if Items 1 and * of the 1ro8in6ia2 'ist are read to-ether0 the 6on62usion 6annot be a8oided that the eApressions Dadministration of /usti6e and 6onstitution of 6ourtsD do not in62ude D/urisdi6tion and po:ers of 6ourtsD :hi6h are separate2y dea2t :ith under Item *. ;o find out0 therefore0 the eAtent of po:ers of the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature in respe6t of 6onferrin- /urisdi6tion upon 6ourts0 the re2e8ant item to be 2oo.ed to is not Item 1 but Item * of the 1ro8in6ia2 'ist. B1. ;he 6ontention in this form seems to me to be p2ain2y una66eptab2e. I a-ree :ith &r. Seta28ad that the different topi6s in the same 'e-is2ati8e 'ist shou2d not be read as eA62usi8e of one another. As :as obser8ed by Sir &auri6e @:yer in ;he Fnited 1ro8in6es 8. Ati<a Be-um +19(), 4.C.R. 11) 0 Dthe sub/e6ts dea2t :ith in the three 'e-is2ati8e 'ists are not a2:ays set out :ith s6ientifi6 definition. It :ou2d be pra6ti6a22y impossib2e for eAamp2e to define ea6h item in the 1ro8in6ia2 'ist in su6h a :ay as to ma.e it eA62usi8e of e8ery other item in that 'ist0 and 1ar2iament seems to ha8e been 6ontent to ta.e a number of 6omprehensi8e 6ate-ories and to des6ribe ea6h of them by a :ord of broad and -enera2 import....... I thin. that none of the items in the 'ist is to be read in a narro: or restri6ted sense0 and that ea6h -enera2 :ord shou2d be he2d to eAtend to a22 an6i22ary or subsidiary matters :hi6h 6an fair2y and reasonab2y be said to be 6omprehended in it.D As there 6an be no <uestion of 6onf2i6t bet:een t:o items in the same 'ist0 there is no :arrant for restri6tin- the natura2 meanin- of one for the simp2e reason that the same sub/e6t mi-ht in some aspe6t some :ithin the pur8ie: of the other. B*. ;he diffi6u2ty0 ho:e8er0 arises :hen :e 6ome to entry 5$ of 'ist I. Fnder this entry0 it is the Centra2 'e-is2ature that has been -i8en the po:er of 2e-is2atin- in re-ard to /urisdi6tion and po:ers of a22 6ourts eA6ept the 4edera2 Court in respe6t to any of the matters in 'ist I. ;he diffi6u2ty that one is 6onfronted :ith0 is that if Item 1 of the 1ro8in6ia2 'ist is ta.en to empo:er the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to in8est a 6ourt :ith /urisdi6tion :ith respe6t to a22 sub/e6ts no matter in :hi6he8er 'ist it mi-ht o66ur0 a 62ear 6onf2i6t is bound to arise bet:een Item 1 of the 1ro8in6ia2 'ist and Item 5$ of the Centra2 'ist! and a 1ro8in6ia2 2e-is2ation trespassin- upon the eA62usi8e fie2d of the 6enter :ou2d be 8oid and inoperati8e under Se6tion 1)) of the Constitution A6t. ;his bein- the position0 a :ay :ou2d ha8e to be found out to a8oid the 6onf2i6t. As the 1ri8y Coun6i2 obser8ed in the 6ase of the Citi5ens Insuran6e Company of Canada 8. 1arsons B A.C. 9 Dit 6ou2d not ha8e been the intention that a 6onf2i6t shou2d eAist and in order to pre8ent su6h a resu2t the t:o se6tions must be read to-ether and the 2an-ua-e of the one interpret and :here ne6essary modified by the other.D B$. &r. Seer8ai su--ests that the proper :ay of re6on6i2in- this apparent 6onf2i6t :ou2d be to read the :ords Dadministration of /usti6e and 6onstitution of 6ourtsD o66urrin- in entry 1 of the 1ro8in6ia2 'ist as eA62usi8e of any matter re2atin- to /urisdi6tion of 6ourts. ;he 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6an on2y set up or 6onstitute 6ourts but their /urisdi6tion or po:er of de6idin- 6ases must be deri8ed from the Centra2 or the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature or from either of them in a66ordan6e :ith the sub/e6ts to :hi6h su6h /urisdi6tion re2ates. ;he 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6an endo: the /urisdi6tion in respe6t to any matter in 'ist II and the Centra2 'e-is2ature 6an do the same :ith re-ard to sub/e6ts spe6ified in 'ist I. So far as in the Con6urrent 'ist are 6on6erned0 either of the 'e-is2ature 6an ma.e pro8isions in respe6t of them sub/e6t to the 6onditions 2aid do:n in Se6tion 1)B of the Constitution A6t. B(. ;his ar-ument0 thou-h apparent2y p2ausib2e0 6annot0 in my opinion0 be a66epted as sound. It is to be noted that the ri-ht to set up 6ourts and to pro8ide for the :ho2e ma6hinery of administration of /usti6e has been -i8en eA62usi8e2y to the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature. Fnder Se6tion 1)1 of the North Ameri6a A6t0 the 1ar2iament of Canada has a reser8e of po:er to 6reate additiona2 6ourts for better administration of the 2a:s of Canada but the Indian Constitution A6t of 19$5 does not -i8e any su6h po:er to the Centra2 'e-is2ature. Courts are to be estab2ished by the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature a2one. ;he :ord D6ourtD 6ertain2y means a p2a6e :here /usti6e is /udi6ia22y administered. ;he appointment of Jud-es and offi6ers or the mere settin- apart of a p2a6e :here the Jud-es are to meet0 are not suffi6ient to 6onstitute a 6ourt. A 6ourt 6annot administer /usti6e un2ess it is 8ested :ith /urisdi6tion to de6ide 6ases and Dthe 6onstitution of a 6ourt ne6essari2y in62udes its /urisdi6tion.D +Vide C2ementDs Canadian Constitution0 $rd Cdn.0 p. 5*B, If &r. Seer8aiDs 6ontention is a66epted0 the resu2t :i22 be that :hen a 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature estab2ishes a 6i8i2 6ourt0 it 6an on2y be in8ested :ith /urisdi6tion to de6ide 6ases in respe6t to matters 6omin- :ithin the

1ro8in6ia2 'ist. Su6h 6ourt 6an ha8e no po:er to de6ide 6ases re2atin- to any matter :hi6h is enumerated in 'ist I so 2on- as the appropriate 'e-is2ature does not 6onfer upon it the re<uisite authority. ;hus an ordinary 1ro8in6ia2 Court estab2ished to de6ide 6i8i2 suits :ou2d be entit2ed to entertain a22 money 62aims but not a 62aim on a promissory note! nor 6ou2d it entertain a suit for re6o8ery of 6orporation taA0 for Ne-otiab2e Instruments and 6orporation taA are sub/e6ts of the Centra2 'ist. ;his 6ertain2y :as not the s6heme of the Constitution A6t. In my opinion0 the proper :ay to a8oid a 6onf2i6t :ou2d be to read entry 1 of the 1ro8in6ia2 'ist0 :hi6h 6ontains the on2y pro8ision re2atin- to 6onstitution of 6ourts and administration of /usti6e0 a2on- :ith the -roup of three entries0 8i5.0 entry 5$ of 'ist I0 entry * of 'ist II and entry 15 of 'ist III :ith :hi6h it is supposed to be in 6onf2i6t0 and to interpret the 2an-ua-e of one by that of the other. Cntry 1 of 'ist II uses the eApressions Dadministration of /usti6e and 6onstitution of a22 6ourtsD in a perfe6t2y -enera2 manner. No parti6u2ar sub/e6t is spe6ified to :hi6h the administration of /usti6e mi-ht re2ate or for :hi6h a 6ourt mi-ht be 6onstituted. It 6an0 therefore0 be 2e-itimate2y interpreted to refer to a -enera2 /urisdi6tion to de6ide 6ases not 2imited to any parti6u2ar sub/e6t. ;he other three items on the other hand re2ate to parti6u2ar matters appearin- in the three 'ists and :hat they 6ontemp2ate is the 8estin- of /urisdi6tion in 6ourts :ith re-ard to su6h spe6ifi6 items on2y. In one 6ase the /urisdi6tion is D-enera2D as is imp2ied in the eApression Dadministration of /usti6eD0 :hi2e in the other three the /urisdi6tion is Dparti6u2arD as 2imited to parti6u2ar matters and hen6e eA62usi8e. I a-ree :ith my 2earned brother 1atan/a2i Sastri J. that one appro8ed :ay of determinin- the s6ope of a 2e-is2ati8e topi6 is to ha8e re-ard to :hat has been ordinari2y treated as embra6ed :ithin that topi6 in the 2e-is2ati8e pra6ti6e of the 6ountry +Vide Croft 8. 3unphy0 +19$$, A.C. 15 ,! and if that test is app2ied0 the interpretation su--ested abo8e :ou2d appear to be perfe6t2y 2e-itimate. ;he distin6tion bet:een -enera2 and parti6u2ar /urisdi6tion has a2:ays been re6o-nised in the 2e-is2ati8e pra6ti6e of this 6ountry prior to the passin- of the Constitution A6t of 19$5 and a2so after that. ;here ha8e been a2:ays in this 6ountry 6i8i2 6ourts of 6ertain 62asses and 6ate-ories -raded in a 6ertain manner a66ordin- to their pe6uniary /urisdi6tion and empo:ered to entertain and de6ide a22 suits of a 6i8i2 nature :ithin parti6u2ar 2o6a2ities. 1arti6u2ar /urisdi6tion a-ain ha8e been 6onferred on some one or the other of these 6ourts to try 6ases re2atin- to 6ertain spe6ified matters. ;hus there ha8e been spe6ia2 /urisdi6tions 6reated for inso28en6y0 probate or -uardianship pro6eedin-s0 for de6idin- disputes re2atin- to 6ompu2sory a6<uisition of 2and and for dea2in- :ith 6ases arisin- under the Rent A6ts or the different 2e-is2ations passed in re6ent years for s6a2in- do:n eAorbitant rates of interest or -i8in- re2ief to rura2 debtors. Simi2ar instan6es may be 6ited :ith re-ard to 6onferrin- of spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion in 6rimina2 6ases. B5. ;here :i22 be no diffi6u2ty in interpretin- in a proper manner the different entries in the 'e-is2ati8e 'ists referred to abo8e if this distin6tion bet:een -enera2 and spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion is .ept in 8ie:. ;he entire s6heme of the Constitution A6t of 19$5 is to 8est the po:er of estab2ishin- 6ourts upon the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature. ;he 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6an endo: the 6ourts :hi6h it sets up :ith -enera2 /urisdi6tion to de6ide a22 6ases :hi6h0 a66ordin- to the 2a: of the 2and0 are triab2e in a 6ourt of 2a:0 and a22 these po:ers 6an be eAer6ised under entry 1 of 'ist II. If the Centra2 'e-is2ature or the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6hooses to 6onfer spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion on 6ertain 6ourts in respe6t to matters enumerated in their appropriate 2e-is2ati8e 2ists0 they 6an eAer6ise su6h po:ers under the three entries spe6ified abo8e. But the eAer6ise of any su6h po:ers by the Centra2 @o8ernment :ou2d not in any :ay 6onf2i6t :ith the po:ers eAer6isab2e by the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature under entry 1 of 'ist II. ;he eApression D-enera2D must a2:ays be understood as bein- opposed to :hat is Dspe6ia2D or eA62usi8e. If the Centra2 'e-is2ature 8ests any parti6u2ar /urisdi6tion upon a 6ourt in respe6t to a Centra2 matter0 that matter :ou2d 6ease to be a -enera2 matter and 6onse<uent2y the 6ourt ha8in- -enera2 /urisdi6tion :ou2d no 2on-er dea2 :ith that0 but the -enera2 /urisdi6tion of su6h 6ourts :ou2d not be affe6ted thereby. ;he 6ontents of -enera2 /urisdi6tion are a2:ays indeterminate and are not sus6eptib2e of any spe6ifi6 enumeration. In this 8ie:0 I do not thin. that it :ou2d be at a22 ne6essary to in8o.e Dthe pith and substan6eD do6trine in a8oidin- the possibi2ity of in6identa2 en6roa6hment by the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature upon Centra2 sub/e6ts in re-ard to 6onferrin/urisdi6tion upon 6ourts. If the eApression D/urisdi6tionD in entry 5$ of 'ist I means and refers to spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion on2y0 there 6annot be e8en an in6identa2 en6roa6hment upon su6h spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion by reason of the 6onferrin- of -enera2 /urisdi6tion upon 6ourts by the 1ro8isiona2 'e-is2ature under entry 1 of 'ist II. As I ha8e said a2ready :hat is Dspe6ia2D or made so0 :i22 automati6a22y 6ease to be in the 6ate-ory of :hat is D-enera2D and no <uestion of a 6onf2i6t :ou2d at a22 arise. B . It may be pointed out in this 6onne6tion that in the Canadian Constitution a2so0 the -enera2 s6heme is

to 6arry on administrati8e of /usti6e throu-hout Canada throu-h the medium of pro8in6ia2 6ourts. Sub/e6t to the residuary po:er reser8ed to the 3ominion 1ar2iament under Se6tion 1)1 of the North Ameri6a A6t0 the Constitution has assi-ned to the pro8in6es the eA62usi8e po:er in re2ation to administration of /usti6e in62udin- the maintenan6e0 6onstitution and or-ani5ation of 6ourts. ;here is no 2imitation in any pro8in6ia2 6ourt a2on- the 2ine of di8ision that eAists bet:een matters :ithin the 2e-is2ati8e 6ompeten6e of the 3ominion 1ar2iament and of the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature Assemb2ies +Vide C2ementDs Canadian Constitution p. 5* ,. ;here is indeed no su6h thin- as entry 5$ in 'ist I of the Indian A6t in the Canadian Constitution0 but there are /udi6ia2 pronoun6ements to the effe6t that the 3ominion 1ar2iament 6an impose /urisdi6tion on pro8in6ia2 6ourts o8er 3ominion sub/e6ts +Vide 'efroyDs CanadaDs 4edera2 System p. 5(1,. It may be that the British 1ar2iament in framin- the 2e-is2ati8e topi6s in the @o8ernment of India A6t of 19$5 in re-ard to administration of /usti6e and /urisdi6tion of 6ourts :anted to adopts the Canadian mode2 :ith su6h modifi6ations as they 6onsidered ne6essary. It is0 ho:e8er0 immateria2 to spe6u2ate on these matters. 4or the reasons -i8en abo8e0 I am of the opinion that the de6ision of the Bombay ?i-h Court in &u26hand 8. Raman 51 Bom. '.R. 9 is 6orre6t0 and the 6ontention of &r. Seer8ai shou2d fai2. BB. In the resu2t0 the appea2 is a22o:ed and the /ud-ment of the ?i-h Court is set aside. 3as0 J. B9. I a-ree that this appea2 shou2d be a22o:ed. In 8ie: of the importan6e of the <uestions raised in this appea20 I 6onsider it ri-ht to state my reasons for 6omin- to that 6on62usion. B9. ;he sa2ient fa6ts0 as to :hi6h there is no dispute0 are as fo22o:s : %n &ay 1)0 19(90 the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature of Bombay passed A6t No. >' of 19(90 6a22ed the Bombay 6ity Ci8i2 Court A6t0 19(9. It :as passed :ith a 8ie: Dto estab2ish an additiona2 Ci8i2 Court for @reater Bombay.D ;he pro8isions of that A6t :hi6h :i22 be re2e8ant for the purposes of the present appea2 may no: be set out : D1. "*# It sha22 6ome into for6e on su6h date as the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment may0 by notifi6ation in the %ffi6ia2 @a5ette0 appoint in this beha2f. $. ;he 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment may0 by notifi6ation in the %ffi6ia2 @a5ette0 estab2ish for the @reater Bombay a Court0 to be 6a22ed the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court. Not:ithstandin- anythin- 6ontained in any 2a:0 su6h Court sha22 ha8e /urisdi6tion to re6ei8e0 try and dispose of a22 suits and other pro6eedin-s of a 6i8i2 nature not eA6eedin- ten thousand rupees in 8a2ue0 and arisin- :ithin the @reater Bombay0 eA6ept suits or pro6eedin-s :hi6h are 6o-ni5ab2e 7 "a# by the ?i-h Court as a Court of Admira2ty or Vi6e7Admira2ty or as a Co2onia2 Court of Admira2ty0 or as a Court ha8in- testamentary0 intestate or matrimonia2 /urisdi6tion0 or "b# by the ?i-h Court for the re2ief of inso28ent debtors0 or "6# by the ?i-h Court under any spe6ia2 2a: other than the 'etters 1atent0 or "d# by the Sma22 Cause Court : 1ro8ided that the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment may0 from time to time0 after 6onsu2tation :ith the ?i-h Court0 by a 2i.e notifi6ation eAtend the /urisdi6tion of the City Court to any suits or pro6eedin-s of the nature spe6ified in C2auses "a# and "b#. (. Sub/e6t to the eA6eptions spe6ified in Se6tion $0 the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment may0 by notifi6ation in the %ffi6ia2 @a5ette0 in8est the City Court :ith /urisdi6tion to re6ei8e0 try and dispose of a22 suits and other pro6eedin-s of a 6i8i2 nature arisin- :ithin the @reater Bombay and of su6h 8a2ue not eA6eedin- t:enty7fi8e thousand rupees as may be spe6ified in the notifi6ation. 1*. Not:ithstandin- anythin- 6ontained in any 2a:0 the ?i-h Court sha22 not ha8e /urisdi6tion to try suits and pro6eedin-s 6o-ni5ab2e by the City Court : 1ro8ided that the ?i-h Court may0 for any spe6ia2 reason0 and at any sta-e0 remo8e for tria2 by itse2f any suit or pro6eedin- from the City Court.D

9). ;he A6t re6ei8ed the assent of the @o8ernor7@enera2 about the same time. It 6ame into for6e on Au-ust 1 0 19(90 by a notifi6ation issued by the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment and pub2ished in the %ffi6ia2 @a5ette. Simu2taneous2y :ith the passin- of the abo8e A6t the Bombay 'e-is2ature a2so ena6ted A6t ">'I of 19(9# 6a22ed the Bombay ?i-h Court 'etters 1atent Amendment A6t0 19(9. By Se6tion $ of that A6t C2ause 1* of the 'etters 1atent :as amended by addin- the fo22o:in- :ords :7 DCA6ept that the said ?i-h Court sha22 not ha8e su6h %ri-ina2 Jurisdi6tion in 6ases fa22in- :ithin the /urisdi6tion of the Sma22 Cause Court at Bombay or the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court.D 91. Short2y after the passin- of the abo8e A6ts0 the 8a2idity of the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t ">' of 19(9# :as 6ha22en-ed in &u26hand Gundanma2 Ja-tiani 8. Raman ?ira2a2 Shah A.I.R. 19(9 Bom. 19B0 a suit on promissory notes fi2ed in the %ri-ina2 side of the ?i-h Court. A 3i8ision Ben6h of the Bombay ?i-h Court "Cha-2a C.J. and Bha-:ati J.#0 on September *0 19(90 he2d that the A6t :as :e22 :ithin the 2e-is2ati8e 6ompeten6e of the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature and :as not u2tra 8ires. 'ea8e :as -i8en to the p2aintiff in that suit under Se6tion *)5 of the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$50 to appea2 to the 4edera2 Court but no su6h appea2 appears to ha8e been fi2ed. 9*. %n January *)0 195)0 the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment of Bombay issued the fo22o:in- notifi6ation No. *$( J5 in the %ffi6ia2 @a5ette : DIn eAer6ise of the po:ers 6onferred by Se6tion ( of the Bombay City Court A6t0 19(9 "Bombay A6t >' of 19(9#0 the @o8ernment of Bombay is p2eased to in8est0 :ith effe6t from and on the date of this notifi6ation0 the City Court :ith /urisdi6tion in re6ei8e0 try and dispose of a22 suits and other pro6eedin-s of a 6i8i2 nature not eA6eedin- t:enty7fi8e thousand rupees in 8a2ue0 and arisin- :ithin the @reater Bombay sub/e6t0 ho:e8er0 to the eA6eptions spe6ified in Se6tion $ of the said A6t.D 9$. %n 4ebruary 0 195)0 the first respondent Narothamdas Jethabhai presented a p2aint before the 1rothonotary of the Bombay ?i-h Court for re6o8ery of Rs. 110B)(757( :ith further interest due by the se6ond respondent A2oysious 1into 1hi22ips upon three se8era2 promissory notes. In para-raph ( of this p2aint it :as eApress2y p2eaded that the ?i-h Court had /urisdi6tion to re6ei8e0 try and dispose of that suit be6ause "1# the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t0 19(90 :as u2tra 8ires and "*# at 2east Se6tion ( of that A6t and the notifi6ation issued thereunder :ere u2tra 8ires. ?a8in- some doubts as to :hether in 8ie: of the notifi6ation issued by the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment under Se6tion ( of the A6t the p2aint 6ou2d be admitted in the ?i-h Court0 the 1rothonotary p2a6ed the matter under the ru2es of the Court before Bha-:ati J. :ho :as than the Jud-e in Chambers. By his /ud-ment de2i8ered on 4ebruary *$0 195)0 Bha-:ati J. he2d that Se6tion ( of the A6t and the notifi6ation issued thereunder :ere u2tra 8ires and 8oid and that the ?i-h Court0 therefore0 had /urisdi6tion to entertain the suit. ;he p2aint :as a66ordin-2y re6ei8ed and admitted. 9(. ;he first respondent thereupon too. out a summons under the ru2es of the Court for 2ea8e to si-n /ud-ment a-ainst the se6ond respondent. ;he State of Bombay :as0 on its o:n app2i6ation0 added as a party to the suit. ;he matter :as put up before a 3i8ision Ben6h "Cha-2a C.J. and ;endo2.ar J.# for tria2 of the fo22o:in- issues : D"1# =hether A6t >' of 19(9 is u2tra 8ires of the 'e-is2ature of the State of Bombay. "*# =hether Se6tion ( of A6t >' of 19(9 is in any e8ent u2tra 8ires of the 'e-is2ature of the State of Bombay. "$# =hether the @o8ernment of Bombay Notifi6ation No. *$( J5 dated *)th January0 195)0 is u2tra 8ires0 8oid and inoperati8e in 2a:. "(# =hether this Court has /urisdi6tion to try the suit.D 95. ;he 2ar-er point in8o28ed in issue No. 1 ha8in- been 6on62uded by the ear2ier de6ision of the 3i8ision Ben6h in &u26hand Gundanma2 Ja-tiani 8. Raman ?ira2a2 Shah 51 Bom. '.R. 9 that issue :as ans:ered in the ne-ati8e :ithout any ar-ument but 2ea8e :as reser8ed to the first respondent to 6ontest the

6orre6tness of that ear2ier de6ision on this Court. ;he 3i8ision Ben6h in a-reement :ith Bha-:ati J. he2d that by Se6tion ( of the A6t the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature did not itse2f 2e-is2ate but de2e-ated the po:er of 2e-is2ation to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment :hi6h it had no po:er to do and0 therefore0 Se6tion ( and a2on:ith it the notifi6ation No. *$( J5 issued thereunder :ere u2tra 8ires0 8oid and inoperati8e. A66ordin-2y they ans:ered issues Nos. "*#0 "$# and "(# in the affirmati8e and sent the summons for /ud-ment ba6. to the 2earned Jud-e ta.in- mis6e22aneous matters to dispose it of on merits. ;he State of Bombay has no: 6ome up before us in appea2 from this de6ision of the ?i-h Court. 9 . ;he Ad8o6ate7@enera2 of &adras has inter8ened in support of this appea2 and for maintainin- the 8a2idity of the &adras City Ci8i2 Court A6t "VII of 199*# Se6tion $A of :hi6h inserted in 19$5 by :ay of amendment is in identi6a2 terms :ith Se6tion ( of the Bombay A6t eA6ept that the amount of the 8a2ue :as fiAed at Rs. 1)0))) in Se6tion $A of the &adras A6t instead of Rs. *50))) fiAed in Se6tion ( of the Bombay A6t. 9B. ;he distin6tion bet:een 6onditiona2 2e-is2ation and de2e-ation of 2e-is2ati8e po:er has been :e227.no:n e8er sin6e the de6ision of the 1ri8y Coun6i2 in R. 8. Burah '.R. 5 IndAp 1B9 and the other 1ri8y Coun6i2 6ases 6ited in the /ud-ments of the ?i-h Court. It is firm2y estab2ished that 6onditiona2 2e-is2ation is not on2y permissib2e but is indeed in many 6ases 6on8enient and ne6essary. ;he diffi6u2ty :hi6h 6onfronts the Courts is in as6ertainin- :hether a parti6u2ar pro8ision of a Statute 6onstitutes a 6onditiona2 2e-is2ation as eAp2ained in the de6isions of the 1ri8y Coun6i2. In the present 6ase the ?i-h Court0 on a 6onstru6tion of Se6tion ( of the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t0 6ame to the 6on62usion that it :as not an instan6e of 6onditiona2 2e-is2ation at a22. ;he use of the :ord Din8estD in Se6tion ( :as 6onsidered by the ?i-h Court to be 8ery si-nifi6ant and the differen6e bet:een the 2an-ua-e in Se6tion $ and that in Se6tion ( appeared to them to be 8ery mar.ed and stri.in-. A66ordin- to the ?i-h Court :hi2e by Se6tion $ the 'e-is2ature itse2f set up a Court :ith a parti6u2ar pe6uniary /urisdi6tion0 under Se6tion ( the 'e-is2ature itse2f did not in8est the Court :ith any hi-her /urisdi6tion but 2eft it to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to eAer6ise the fun6tion :hi6h the @o8ernment of India A6t 2aid do:n shou2d be eAer6ised by the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature. ;he 2earned Chief Justi6e eApressed the 8ie: that the 'e-is2ature ne8er app2ied its mind to the <uestion as to :hether the ne: Court :hi6h it :as settin- up shou2d ha8e a /urisdi6tion hi-her than that of Rs. 1)0)))0 and that Se6tion ( :as not a se6tion :hi6h mere2y dire6ted the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to 6arry out the po2i6y 2aid do:n by the 'e-is2ature0 but that it :as a se6tion :hi6h 6onferred upon the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment the po:er to 6onfer /urisdi6tion upon the Court. ;hen0 after referrin- to R. 8. Burah '.R. 5 IndAp 1B9 and se8era2 other 6ases and purportin- to app2y the tests 2aid do:n in the de6isions to the A6t the 2earned Chief Justi6e 6on62uded that the 'e-is2ature in the eAer6ise of its 2e-is2ati8e po:er had set up a Ci8i2 Court :ith a 2imited /urisdi6tion under Se6tion $ of the A6t0 that it had not set up a Court :ith a /urisdi6tion hi-her than ten thousand rupees and that0 ha8in- set up a Court of 2imited /urisdi6tion0 it had -i8en to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment under Se6tion ( the po:er to 6onfer upon that Court a hi-her /urisdi6tion up to t:enty7fi8e thousand rupees. ;his po:er0 :hi6h :as 6onferred upon the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment :as a66ordin- to the Chief Justi6e0 a po:er :hi6h 6ou2d on2y ha8e been eAer6ised by the 'e-is2ature itse2f. I am unab2e to a66ept the afore7mentioned 6onstru6tion of Se6tions $ and ( of the A6t. 99. As I ha8e a2ready said0 the ?i-h Court founded their 6on62usions prin6ipa22y on the obser8ations of their 'ordships'.R. 5 IndAp 1B9 of the 1ri8y Coun6i2 in R. 8. Burah and 6ertain other 1ri8y Coun6i2 6ases. It :i22 be usefu20 therefore0 to ana2yse the 1ri8y Coun6i2 de6ision in R. 8. Burah '.R. 5 IndAp 1B9. In 19 9 the Indian 'e-is2ature passed an A6t "No. >>II of 19 9# purportin-0 first0 to remo8e a distri6t 6a22ed @aro ?i22s from the /urisdi6tion of the Courts of 6i8i2 and 6rimina2 /urisdi6tion and from the 2a: pres6ribed for su6h Courts by Re-u2ations and A6ts and0 se6ond2y0 to 8est the administration of 6i8i2 and 6rimina2 /usti6e0 :ithin the same territory0 in su6h offi6ers as the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor of Ben-a2 mi-ht0 for the purpose of tribuna2s of first instan6e0 or of referen6e and appea20 from time to time appoint. ;he A6t :as to 6ome into operation on su6h day as the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor of Ben-a2 shou2d0 by notifi6ation in the Ca26utta @a5ette0 dire6t. ;he 9th se6tion authorised the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor of Ben-a2 by notifi6ation in the Ca26utta @a5ette to eAtend to the said territory0 any 2a: or any portion of any 2a: then in for6e in other territories sub/e6t to his -o8ernment or :hi6h may thereafter be ena6ted by the Coun6i2 of the @o8ernor7@enera2 or of himse2f. ;he 9th se6tion of that A6t pro8ided :

D;he said 'ieutenant7@o8ernor may from time to time0 by notifi6ation in the Ca26utta @a5ette0 eAtend mutatis mutandis a22 or any of the pro8isions 6ontained in the other se6tions of this A6t to the Jaintia ?i22s0 the Na-a ?i22s0 and to su6h portion of the Ghasi ?i22s0 as for the time bein- forms part of British India. C8ery su6h notifi6ation sha22 spe6ify the boundaries of the territories to :hi6h it app2ies.D 99. %n %6tober 1(0 19B10 the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor of Ben-a2 issued a notifi6ation in eAer6ise of the po:ers 6onferred on him by Se6tion 9 eAtendin- the pro8isions of that A6t to the territory .no:n as the Ghasi and Jaintia ?i22s and eA62uded therefrom the /urisdi6tion of the Courts of 6i8i2 and 6rimina2 /usti6e. ;he respondent Burah and another person ha8in- been 6on8i6ted by the 3eputy Commissioner of the Ghasi and Jaintia ?i22s of murder and senten6ed to death0 :hi6h :as 2ater on 6ommuted to transportation for 2ife0 they from /ai2 sent a petition of appea2 a-ainst their 6on8i6tion. ;he pro8isions of A6t >>II of 19 9 ha8in- been eAtended0 by notifi6ation under Se6tion 90 to the Ghasi and Jaintia ?i22s0 the ?i-h Court :ou2d ha8e no /urisdi6tion to entertain the appea20 un2ess Se6tion 9 and the notifi6ation :ere u2tra 8ires and 8oid. ;he ma/ority of the Jud-es of the 4u22 Ben6h 6onstituted for 6onsiderin- the <uestion too. the 8ie: that Se6tion 9 :as rea22y not 2e-is2ation but :as an instan6e of de2e-ation of 2e-is2ati8e po:er. ;he Cro:n obtained spe6ia2 2ea8e to appea2 to the 1ri8y Coun6i2. In summarisin- the effe6t of the pro8isions of Se6tions 1 to 9 of that A6t on @aro ?i22s 'ord Se2borne :ho de2i8ered the /ud-ment of the 1ri8y Coun6i2 obser8ed at pa-e 19( that the @o8ernor7@enera2 in Coun6i2 had determined0 in the due and ordinary 6ourse of 2e-is2ation0 to remo8e a parti6u2ar distri6t from the /urisdi6tion of the ordinary Courts and offi6es0 and to p2a6e it under ne: Courts and offi6es0 to be appointed by and responsib2e to the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor of Ben-a2 2ea8in- it to the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor to say at :hat time that 6han-e shou2d ta.e p2a6e0 that the 'e-is2ature had determined that0 so far0 a 6ertain 6han-e shou2d ta.e p2a6e0 but that it :as eApedient to 2ea8e the time0 and the manner0 of 6arryin- it into effe6t to the dis6retion of the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor and a2so0 that the 2a:s :hi6h :ere or mi-ht be in for6e in the other territories sub/e6t to the same @o8ernment :ere su6h as it mi-ht be fit and proper to app2y to this distri6t a2so0 but that0 as it :as not 6ertain that a22 those 2a:s0 and e8ery part of them0 6ou2d :ith e<ua2 6on8enien6e be so app2ied0 it :as eApedient0 on that point a2so0 to entrust a dis6retion to the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor. ?is 'ordship then pro6eeded to state the true meanin- and effe6t of the pro8isions of Se6tion 9 : D;his ha8in- been done as to the @aro ?i22s0 :hat :as done as to the Ghasi and Jaintia ?i22s E ;he 'e-is2ature de6ided that it :as fit and proper that the ad/oinin- distri6t of the Ghasi and Jaintia ?i22s shou2d a2so be remo8ed from the /urisdi6tion of the eAistin- Courts0 and brou-ht under the same pro8isions :ith the @aro ?i22s0 not ne6essari2y and at a22 e8ents0 but if and :hen the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor shou2d thin. it desirab2e to do so! and that it :as a2so possib2e that it mi-ht be eApedient that not a220 but some on2y0 of those pro8isions shou2d be app2ied to that ad/oinin- distri6t. And a66ordin-2y the 'e-is2ature entrusted for these purposes a2so0 a dis6retionary po:er to the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor.D 9). 4ina22y0 his 'ordship 6on62uded at p. 195 : D;heir 'ordships thin. that it is a fa22a6y to spea. of the po:ers thus 6onferred upon the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor "2ar-e as they undoubted2y are# as if0 :hen they :ere eAer6ised0 the effi6a6y of the a6ts done under them :ou2d be due to any other 2e-is2ati8e authority than that of the @o8ernor7@enera2 in Coun6i2. ;heir :ho2e operation is0 dire6t2y and immediate2y0 under and by 8irtue of this A6t >>II of 19 9 itse2f. ;he proper 'e-is2ature has eAer6ised its /ud-ment as to p2a6e0 person0 2a:s0 po:ers! and the resu2t of that /ud-ment has been to 2e-is2ate 6onditiona22y as to a22 these thin-s. ;he 6onditions ha8in- been fu2fi22ed0 the 2e-is2ation is no: abso2ute. =here p2enary po:ers of 2e-is2ation eAist as to parti6u2ar sub/e6ts0 :hether in an imperia2 or in a 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature0 they may0 in their 'ordshipsD /ud-ment0 be :e22 eAer6ised0 either abso2ute2y or 6onditiona22y. 'e-is2ation0 6onditiona2 on the use of parti6u2ar po:ers0 or on the eAer6ise of a 2imited dis6retion0 entrusted by the 'e-is2ature to persons in :hom it p2a6es 6onfiden6e0 is no un6ommon thin-! and0 in many 6ir6umstan6es0 it may be hi-h2y 6on8enient.D 91. If the reasonin-s under2yin- the obser8ations of the Bombay ?i-h Court :ere 6orre6t then on those 8ery reasonin-s it 6ou2d be he2d in BurahDs 6ase +'.R. 5 I.A. 1B9, that :hi2e in ena6tin- Se6tions 1 to 9 the 'e-is2ature had app2ied its mind and 2aid do:n its po2i6y as to the eA62usion of the @aro ?i22s from

the /urisdi6tion of the Courts the 'e-is2ature did not app2y its mind and did not 2ay do:n any po2i6y as to the eA62usion of the Ghasi and Jaintia ?i22s from the /urisdi6tion of the Courts but had 2eft it to the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor to do :hat it a2one 6ou2d do. ;his 6onstru6tion <uite 62ear2y did not find fa8our :ith the 1ri8y Coun6i2. ;he 1ri8y Coun6i2 by 6onstru6tion spe2t out of the 8ery 2an-ua-e of Se6tion 9 that the 'e-is2ature itse2f had de6ided that it :as fit and proper that the Ghasi and Jaintia ?i22s shou2d a2so be remo8ed from the /urisdi6tion of the eAistin- Courts and brou-ht under the same pro8isions as app2ied to the @aro ?i22s0 not ne6essari2y and at a22 e8ents but if and :hen the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor shou2d thin. it desirab2e to do so and a66ordin-2y entrusted a dis6retionary po:er to the 'ieutenant7@o8ernor. Adoptinthe same method of 6onstru6tion and adoptin- the 2an-ua-e of 'ord Se2borne it may :e22 be said that in ena6tin- Se6tion $ the 'e-is2ature itse2f has determined0 in the due and ordinary 6ourse of 2e-is2ation0 to estab2ish an additiona2 Court of 6i8i2 /urisdi6tion :ith /urisdi6tion to entertain suits and other pro6eedin-s arisin- :ithin the @reater Bombay of the 8a2ue up to Rs. 1)0))) 2ea8in- it0 by Se6tion 1"*#0 to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to say at :hat time that 6han-e shou2d ta.e p2a6e. 'i.e:ise0 it may be said that in ena6tin- Se6tion ( the 'e-is2ature itse2f has de6ided that it is fit and proper to eAtend the pe6uniary /urisdi6tion of the ne: Court0 not ne6essari2y and at a22 e8ents or a22 at on6e but0 if and :hen the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment shou2d thin. it desirab2e to do so and a66ordin-2y entrusted a dis6retionary po:er to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment. It is entire2y :ron- to say that the 'e-is2ature has not app2ied its mind or 2aid do:n any po2i6y. Indeed0 the 8ery fa6t that the eAtension of pe6uniary /urisdi6tion shou2d not eA6eed t:enty7fi8e thousand rupees0 that the eAtension shou2d be sub/e6t to the eA6eptions spe6ified in Se6tion $ 62ear2y indi6ate that the 'e-is2ature itse2f has de6ided that the eAtension of the pe6uniary /urisdi6tion of the ne: Court shou2d be made0 not ne6essari2y or at a22 e8ents or a22 at any one time but :hen the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment may 6onsider it desirab2e to do so and :hi2e entrustin- a dis6retionary po:er :ith the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to determine the time for in8estin- su6h eAtended /urisdi6tion on the ne: Court0 the 'e-is2ature itse2f has a2so pres6ribed the 2imits of su6h eAtension. ;he effi6a6y of the A6t of eAtension of /urisdi6tion is0 therefore0 not due to any other 2e-is2ati8e authority than that of the 'e-is2ature itse2f. ;he eApression Din8estD does not appear to me to ha8e any spe6ia2 si-nifi6an6e. It on2y imp2ies or indi6ates the resu2t of the fu2fi2ment of the 6ondition :hi6h the 'e-is2ature itse2f 2aid do:n. ;o use the 2an-ua-e of 'ord Se2borne the eAtension of /urisdi6tion is dire6t2y and immediate2y under and by 8irtue of this 8ery A6t itse2f. ?ere there is no effa6ement of the 'e-is2ature0 no abdi6ation of the 2e-is2ati8e po:er. %n the 6ontrary0 the proper 'e-is2ator has eAer6ised its /ud-ment as to the possib2e ne6essity for the eAtension of the pe6uniary /urisdi6tion of the ne: Court and the resu2t of that /ud-ment has been to 2e-is2ate 6onditiona22y as to su6h eAtension and that the 6ondition ha8in- been fu2fi22ed by the issue of the notifi6ation by the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment the 2e-is2ation has no: be6ome abso2ute. In my /ud-ment the 6onstru6tion put upon Se6tions $ and ( by the ?i-h Court :as erroneous and 6annot be supported either on prin6ip2e or on authority. =hen proper2y 6onstrued in the 2i-ht of the obser8ations and de6ision of the 1ri8y Coun6i2 in R. 8. Burah '.R. 5 IndAp 1B9 as indi6ated abo8e Se6tion ( does not amount to a de2e-ation of 2e-is2ati8e po:er at a22 but 6onstitutes :hat is .no:n as 6onditiona2 2e-is2ation. 9*. Re2ian6e :as p2a6ed by the ?i-h Court on the de6ision of the 4edera2 Court of India in Jatindra Nath @upta 8. 1ro8in6e of Bihar in support of their 6on62usions. ;hat 6ase :as 6on6erned :ith the <uestion of the 8a2idity of the pro8iso to Se6tion 1"$# of the Bihar &aintenan6e of 1ub2i6 %rder A6t "V of 19(B#. Se6tion 1"$# pro8ided that the A6t shou2d remain in for6e for a period of one year from the date of its 6ommen6ement. ;he re2e8ant part of the pro8iso :as in the fo22o:in- terms : D1ro8ided that the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment may0 by notifi6ation0 on a reso2ution passed by the Bihar 'e-is2ati8e Assemb2y and a-reed to by the Bihar 'e-is2ati8e Coun6i20 dire6t that this A6t sha22 remain in for6e for a further period of one year :ith su6h modifi6ations0 if any0 as may be spe6ified in the notifi6ation.D 9$. ;hree of the 2earned Jud-es he2d that the pro8iso and the notifi6ation thereunder :ere u2tra 8ires and 8oid. ;hey 2aid parti6u2ar emphasis on the po:er -i8en to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to ma.e any modifi6ation in the A6t :hen eAtendin- its 2ife as indi6atin- that it :as a de2e-ation of 2e-is2ati8e po:er. Another 2earned Jud-e did not de6ide this point but a-reed to set aside the order of detention on another -round not materia2 for our present purpose and the remainin- 2earned Jud-e too. a different 8ie: of the effe6t of the pro8iso and he2d that it :as a 6onditiona2 2e-is2ation :ithin the meanin- of the de6ision in R. 8. Burah +'.R. 5 IndAp 1B9,. I do not find it ne6essary0 for the purposes of the present appea20 to eApress

any 8ie: as to the 6orre6tness of the de6ision of the 4edera2 Court in that 6ase. Assumin-0 but :ithout de6idin-0 that the entrustment :ith the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment of the po:er to eAtend the 2ife of an A6t :ith su6h modifi6ations as the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment in its unfettered dis6retion thou-ht fit to ma.e :as nothin- but a de2e-ation of 2e-is2ati8e po:ers0 there is no su6h po:er of modifi6ation -i8en to the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment by Se6tion ( of the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t0 19(90 and0 therefore0 that de6ision of the 4edera2 Court 6an ha8e no app2i6ation to the 6ase before us. 9(. ;he 2earned Attorney7@enera2 :ants to -o further and 6ontend that under the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$50 it :as permissib2e for the 'e-is2atures0 Centra2 or 1ro8in6ia20 :hi2e a6tin- :ithin their respe6ti8e 2e-is2ati8e fie2ds0 to de2e-ate their 2e-is2ati8e po:ers. In the 8ie: I ha8e eApressed abo8e0 name2y0 that Se6tion ( of the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t0 19(90 does not in8o28e any de2e-ation of 2e-is2ati8e po:er0 I do not 6onsider it ne6essary0 on this o66asion0 to -o into that <uestion and I reser8e my ri-ht to 6onsider and de6ide that <uestion in62udin- the <uestion of the 6orre6tness of the de6ision of the 4edera2 Court in Jatindra Nath @uptaDs 6ase +A.I.R. 19(9 4.C. 1B5, on that point as and :hen o66asion may arise in future. 95. 'earned Counse2 for the first respondent then raises before us the 2ar-er <uestion as to :hether the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t0 19(90 as a :ho2e :as or :as not :ithin the 2e-is2ati8e 6ompeten6e of the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature of Bombay. 'e-is2ati8e po:ers :ere by Se6tion 1)) of the @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$50 distributed amon-st the 4edera2 and the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2atures. Fnder that se6tion the 4edera2 'e-is2ature had0 and the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2atures had not0 po:er to ma.e 2a:s :ith respe6t to any of the matters enumerated in 'ist I in the Se8enth S6hedu2e to that A6t. 'i.e:ise0 the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature had0 and the 4edera2 'e-is2ature had not0 po:er to ma.e 2a:s for the 1ro8in6e :ith respe6t to any of the matters enumerated in 'ist II in that S6hedu2e. It :i22 be noti6ed that the se6tion0 :hi2e affirmati8e2y -i8in- 2e-is2ati8e po:er :ith respe6t to 6ertain matters to one 'e-is2ature0 eApress2y eA62uded the 2e-is2ati8e po:er of the other 'e-is2ature :ith respe6t to those matters. 'ast2y0 Se6tion 1)) -a8e 6on6urrent po:er of 2e-is2ation to the 4edera2 as :e22 as to the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature :ith respe6t to matters enumerated in 'ist III in that S6hedu2e. Se6tion 1)B of that A6t made pro8ision for reso28in- the in6onsisten6y0 if any0 bet:een a 1ro8in6ia2 2a: and a 4edera2 2a: or the eAistin- Indian 2a: :ith respe6t to any of the matters in the Con6urrent 'ist "i.e.0 'ist III#. ;urnin- no: to the three 2ists :e find se8era2 entries re2atin- to Courts0 the re2e8ant portions of :hi6h are as fo22o:s :7 'ist I. Cntry 5$ : Jurisdi6tion and po:ers of a22 Courts0 eA6ept the 4edera2 Court0 :ith respe6t to any of the matters in this 2ist... 'ist II. Cntry 1 : .......... the administration of /usti6e0 6onstitution and or-anisation of a22 Courts0 eA6ept the 4edera2 Court0 and fees ta.en therein!.... Cntry * : Jurisdi6tion and po:ers of a22 Courts0 eA6ept the 4edera2 Court0 :ith respe6t to any of the matters in this 2ist! pro6edure in Rent and Re8enue Courts. 'ist III. 1AR; 1. Cntry * : Crimina2 1ro6edure0 in62udin- a22 matters in62uded in the Code of the Crimina2 1ro6edure at the date of the passin- of this A6t. Cntry ( : Ci8i2 1ro6edure0 in62udin- the 2a: of 'imitation and a22 matters in62uded in the Code of Ci8i2 1ro6edure at the date of the passin- of this A6t!........ Cntry 15 : Jurisdi6tion and po:ers of a22 Courts0 eA6ept the 4edera2 Court0 :ith respe6t to any of the

matters in this 2ist. 9 . 'earned Attorney7@enera2 ur-es that entry 1 in 'ist II 62ear2y indi6ates that administration of /usti6e had been eApress2y made a pro8in6ia2 sub/e6t and that it :as on2y the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature :hi6h 6ou2d ma.e 2a:s :ith respe6t to administration of /usti6e. ;he neAt steps in the ar-ument are that there 6ou2d be no administration of /usti6e un2ess Courts :ere 6onstituted and or-anised0 that the 6onstitution and or-anisation of Courts :ou2d be meanin-2ess enterprises for the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2atures to indu2-e in0 un2ess the Courts so 6onstituted and or-anised :ere 8ita2ised by bein- in8ested :ith /urisdi6tion and po:ers to re6ei8e0 try and determine suits and other pro6eedin-s. ;he ar-ument0 therefore0 is that entry 1 in 'ist II by itse2f -a8e po:er to the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature not on2y to 6onstitute and or-anise Courts but a2so to 6onfer /urisdi6tion and po:ers on them. ;he 2earned Attorney7@enera2 re2ies on Ja-tianiDs 6ase +51 Bom. '.R. 9 , and points out that under entry 1 administration of /usti6e :as entire2y a pro8in6ia2 responsibi2ity and the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature :as authorised to ma.e 2a:s :ith respe6t to administration of /usti6e. Administration of /usti6e0 so the ar-ument pro6eeds0 is inseparab2e from Courts and Courts :ithout /urisdi6tion is an in6omprehensib2e notion. ;he 6on62usion sou-ht to be estab2ish0 therefore0 is that under entry 1 a2one of 'ist II the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature had po:er to ma.e a 2a:0 not mere2y 6onstitutin- a ne: Court but0 in8estin- su6h ne: Court :ith -enera2 /urisdi6tion and po:ers to re6ei8e0 try and determine a22 suits and other pro6eedin-s. If entry 1 in 'ist II stood a2one and entry 5$ in 'ist I0 entry * in 'ist II and entry 15 in 'ist III :ere not in the Se8enth S6hedu2e0 the ar-ument :ou2d ha8e been unans:erab2e. In Se6tion 9* of the British North Ameri6a A6t0 19 B0 there :as no separate pro8ision authorisin- the ma.in- of 2a:s :ith respe6t to /urisdi6tion and po:er of Courts and0 therefore0 the authority to ma.e 2a:s :ith respe6t to the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of Courts had of ne6essity to be found in and spe2t out of the :ords Dadministration of Justi6eD o66urrin- in Se6tion 9*"1(# of that A6t. ;here is0 ho:e8er0 no su6h pressin- or 6ompe22in- ne6essity for -i8in- su6h :ide and a22 embra6in- meanin- to the :ords Dadministration of /usti6eD in entry 1 of 'ist II. ;he eApression Dadministration of /usti6eD may be an eApression of :ide import and may ordinari2y0 and in the absen6e of anythin- indi6atin- any 6ontrary intention0 6o8er and in62ude :ithin its ambit se8era2 thin-s as 6omponent parts of it0 name2y0 the 6onstitution and or-anisation of Court0 /urisdi6tion and po:ers of the Courts and the 2a:s to be administered by the Court. But the 2e-is2ati8e pra6ti6e in Cn-2and as :e22 as in India has been to dea2 :ith these topi6s separate2y in 2e-is2ati8e ena6tments : see for eAamp2e Indian ?i-h Courts A6t 19 1 "*( and *5 Vi6.0 6. 1)(# Se6tions * and 19! @o8ernment of India A6t0 19$50 Se6tions **) and **$0 the 'etters 1atent of the Bombay ?i-h Court0 19 50 and a2so the different Ci8i2 Courts A6ts. %f these0 one topi60 name2y0 D6onstitution and or-anisation of CourtsD had been eApress2y in62uded in entry 1 of 'ist II in addition to Dadministration of /usti6eD0 a fa6t of some si-nifi6an6e :hi6h must be noted a2thou-h I do not say that the in62usion of the :ords D6onstitution and or-anisation of a22 CourtsD in entry 1 of 'ist II by itse2f and in the absen6e of anythin- e2se 6ut do:n the -enera2ity of the meanin- of the eApression Dadministration of Justi6eD :hi6h pre6eded those :ords0 for su6h a 6onstru6tion may mi2itate a-ainst the prin6ip2e 2aid do:n by the 1ri8y Coun6i2 in &e-hra/ 8. A22ah Ra.hia '.R. B( IndAp 1*. 4urther0 entry * in 'ist II :ou2d ha8e been :ho22y unne6essary if the eApression Dadministration of /usti6eD in entry 1 in 'ist II :ere to be -i8en the :ide meanin- 6ontended for by the 2earned Attorney7@enera20 for if under entry 1 in the 'ist II the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature had p2enary po:ers to ma.e 2a:s 6onferrin- on0 or ta.ina:ay from0 Courts0 eAistin- or ne:2y 6onstituted0 /urisdi6tion and po:ers of the :idest des6ription0 su6h po:er :ou2d a2so in62ude the 2esser po:er of 6onferrin- /urisdi6tion and po:ers :ith respe6t to any of the matters enumerated in 'ist Ii0 su6h as is 6ontemp2ated by entry * in 'ist II. ;he -rater po:er :ou2d 6ertain2y ha8e in62uded the 2esser. I do not say that the presen6e of entry * in 'ist II by itse2f 6ut do:n the ambit of the eApression Dadministration of /usti6eD in entry 10 for if there :ere on2y entries 1 and * in 'ist II and there :ere no entries 2i.e entry 5$ in 'ist I and entry 15 in 'ist III0 it mi-ht ha8e been ar-ued :ith some p2ausibi2ity that in framin- the t:o entries in the same 2ist not mu6h 6are :as besto:ed by the draftsman to pre8ent o8er2appin- and that as both the entries in one and the same 2ist -a8e 2e-is2ati8e po:er to the same 'e-is2ature the o8er2appin- 6aused no 6onfusion or in6on8enien6e and that it :as not ne6essary0 therefore0 to 6onstrue entry 1 of 'ist II as 6ut do:n by entry * in the same 'ist. ;he important thin- to noti6e is that the topi6 of D/urisdi6tion and po:ers of CourtsD had not been in62uded in entry 1 in 'ist II a2on- :ith the topi6 of D6onstitution and or-ani5ation of CourtsD0 but the 2e-is2ati8e po:ers :ith respe6t to the topi6 of D/urisdi6tion and po:ers of the CourtsD had been distributed bet:een the 4edera2 and the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2atures in the manner set forth in entry 5$ in 'ist I0 entry * in 'ist II and entry 15 in 'ist III. ;he in62usion of D6onstitution and or-anisation of CourtsD as a separate item in entry 1 in 'ist II0

the omission of the topi6 of D/urisdi6tion and po:ers of CourtsD from entry 1 and the de2iberate distribution of po:ers to ma.e 2a:s :ith respe6t to /urisdi6tion and po:ers of Courts :ith respe6t to the se8era2 matters spe6ified in the three 2ists 62ear2y indi6ate to my mind that the intention of 1ar2iament :as not0 by entry 1 in 'ist II by itse2f0 to authorise the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to ma.e any 2a: :ith respe6t to the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of Courts. In my /ud-ment0 entry 1 in 'ist II 6annot be read as at a22 -i8in- any po:er to the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to 6onfer any /urisdi6tion or po:er on any Court it mi-ht 6onstitute or or-anise under that entry and that the eApressions Dadministration of /usti6eD and D6onstitution and or-anisation of CourtsD o66urrin- in entry 1 in 'ist II shou2d be read as eA62usi8e of Dthe /urisdi6tion and po:ers of CourtsD the po:ers of 2e-is2ation :ith respe6t to :hi6h :ere distributed under entry 5$ in 'ist I0 entry * in 'ist II and entry 15 in 'ist III. Su6h a 6onstru6tion :i22 be 6onsonant :ith the prin6ip2e of 6onstru6tion 2aid do:n by the 1ri8y Coun6i2 in the 6ase of In re &arria-e 'e-is2ation in Canada +191*, A.C. 99). 9B. It is neAt said that entry 1 in 'ist II -a8e -enera2 po:ers to the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to ma.e 2a:s 6onferrin- -enera2 /urisdi6tion and po:ers on Courts 6onstituted by it under that entry :hi2e entry 5$ in 'ist I0 entry * in 'ist II and entry 15 in 'ist III 6onferred spe6ia2 po:ers on the 4edera2 and 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2atures to ma.e 2a:s 6onferrin- spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion and po:ers :ith respe6t to matters spe6ified in their respe6ti8e 'ists. As I ha8e a2ready pointed out0 if entry 1 in 'ist II 6onferred p2enary po:ers on the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to ma.e 2a:s :ith respe6t to /urisdi6tion and po:ers of Courts in :idest terms0 entry * in 'ist II :ou2d be :ho22y redundant0 for the :ider po:er itse2f :ou2d in62ude the 2esser po:er. 4urther0 the 8ery 6on6ession that entry 5$ in 'ist 10 entry * in 'ist II and entry 15 in 'ist III -a8e spe6ia2 po:ers to the 'e-is2ature to 6onfer spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion and po:ers ne6essari2y amounts to an admission that the po:ers 6onferred on the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature by entry 1 in 'ist II :ere eA62usi8e of the po:ers 6onferred under entry 5$ in 'ist I0 entry * in 'ist II and entry 15 in 'ist III0 for if entry 1 in 'ist II -a8e po:er to the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to ma.e 2a:s 6onferrin- -enera2 /urisdi6tion of the :idest .ind :hi6h in62uded /urisdi6tion and po:ers :ith respe6t to a22 matters spe6ified in a22 the 'ists0 then the uti2ity of entry 5$ in 'ist I0 entry * in 'ist II and entry 15 in 'ist III as -i8in- spe6ia2 po:ers to ma.e 2a:s 6onferrin- spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion :ou2d 8anish a2to-ether. Spe6ia2 po:er to 6onfer spe6ia2 /urisdi6tion :ou2d be meanin-2ess if it :ere in62uded in the -enera2 po:er a2so. ;his 6ir6umstan6e by itse2f shou2d be suffi6ient to indu6e the Court to assi-n a 2imited s6ope and ambit to the po:er 6onferred on the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature under entry 1 in 'ist II. =e0 therefore0 6ome ba6. to the same 6on62usion that entry 1 in 'ist II shou2d be 6onstrued and read as 6onferrin- on the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature a22 po:ers :ith respe6t to administration of /usti6e and 6onstitution and or-anisation of Courts minus the po:er to ma.e 2a:s :ith respe6t to the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of Courts. 99. It is pointed out that under entry 1 in 'ist II it :as on2y the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature :hi6h a2one 6ou2d 6onstitute and or-anise a ne: Court and if that entry did not empo:er the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to 8est in su6h ne: Court the -enera2 /urisdi6tion and po:er to re6ei8e0 try and dispose of a22 .inds of suits and other pro6eedin-s0 then no ne: Court of -enera2 /urisdi6tion 6ou2d be estab2ished at a22. As :i22 be seen hereafter0 the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature has0 under entry * in 'ist II0 po:er to ma.e 2a:s 6onferrin- :ide -enera2 /urisdi6tion and po:ers on a ne:2y 6onstituted Court and 6onse<uent2y a for6ed 6onstru6tion need not be p2a6ed on entry 1 in 'ist II. It is said that if the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6ou2d not0 under entry 1 in 'ist II0 6onfer /urisdi6tion on a ne: Court set up by it under that entry0 the resu2t :ou2d ha8e been that the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature :ou2d ha8e had to set up a ne: Court by one 2a: made under entry 1 of 'ist II :ithout 6onferrin- on it any /urisdi6tion :hate8er and :ou2d ha8e had to ma.e another 2a: :ith respe6t to the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of su6h Court. I see no for6e in this0 for the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6ou2d by one and the same 2a: ha8e set up a Court under entry 1 in 'ist II and 8ested in the Court /urisdi6tion and po:ers :ith respe6t to any of the matters spe6ified in 'ist II and0 sub/e6t to Se6tion 1)B of the A6t0 :ith respe6t to any of the matters enumerated in 'ist III. It is :ron- to assume that the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature 6ou2d not ma.e one 2a: under both entry 1 and entry * in 'ist II and entry 15 in 'ist III at one and the same time. 99. A -ood dea2 of ar-ument :as ad8an6ed before us as to the app2i6abi2ity of the do6trine of pith and substan6e and0 indeed0 the de6ision of the Bombay ?i-h Court in Ja-tianiDs 6ase :as pra6ti6a22y founded on that do6trine. Short2y put0 the ar-ument0 as ad8an6ed0 is that under entry 1 in 'ist II the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature had po:er to ma.e 2a:s :ith respe6t to administration of /usti6e! that0 therefore0 the

1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature had po:er0 under entry 1 itse2f0 to ma.e 2a:s 6onferrin- -enera2 /urisdi6tion and po:ers on Courts 6onstituted and or-anised by it under that entry! that if in ma.in- su6h 2a: the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature in6identa22y en6roa6hed upon the 2e-is2ati8e fie2d assi-ned to the 4edera2 'e-is2ature under entry 5$ in 'ist I :ith respe6t to the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of Court :ith respe6t to any of the matters spe6ified in 'ist I0 su6h in6identa2 en6roa6hment did not in8a2idate the 2a:0 as in pith and substan6e it :as a 2a: :ithin the 2e-is2ati8e po:ers. In my /ud-ment0 this ar-ument rea22y be-s the <uestion. ;he do6trine of pith and substan6e postu2ates0 for its app2i6ation0 that the impu-ned 2a: is substantia22y :ithin the 2e-is2ati8e 6ompeten6e of the parti6u2ar 'e-is2ature that made it0 but on2y in6identa22y en6roa6hed upon the 2e-is2ati8e fie2d of another 'e-is2ature. ;he do6trine sa8es this in6identa2 en6roa6hment if on2y the 2a: is in pith and substan6e :ithin the 2e-is2ati8e fie2d of the parti6u2ar 'e-is2ature :hi6h made it. ;herefore0 if the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature under entry 1 had po:er to 8est -enera2 /urisdi6tion on a ne:2y 6onstituted Court0 then if the 2a: made by it in6identa22y -a8e /urisdi6tion to the Court :ith respe6t to matters spe6ified in 'ist I the <uestion of the app2i6abi2ity of the do6trine of pith and substan6e mi-ht ha8e arisen. I ha8e a2ready pointed out that0 on a proper 6onstru6tion0 entry 1 of 'ist II did not empo:er the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to 6onfer any /urisdi6tion or po:er on the Court and the eApression Dadministration of /usti6eD had to be read as 6o8erin- matters re2atin- to administration of /usti6e other than /urisdi6tion and po:ers of Court and0 if that :ere so0 the dis6ussion of the do6trine of pith and substan6e does not arise at a22. I find it diffi6u2t to support the reasonin-s adopted by the Bombay ?i-h Court in Ja-tianiDs 6ase. 1)). ;he ar-ument as to the app2i6abi2ity of the do6trine of pith and substan6e to the impu-ned A6t 6an0 ho:e8er0 be :e22 maintained in the fo22o:in- modified form. Fnder entry * in 'ist II the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature had po:er to ma.e 2a:s :ith respe6t to the /urisdi6tion and po:ers of Courts :ith respe6t to any of the matters enumerated in 'ist II! that Dadministration of /usti6eD in entry 1 is one of the matters in 'ist II! that0 therefore0 the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature had po:er to 6onfer the :idest -enera2 /urisdi6tion on any ne: Court or ta.e a:ay the entire /urisdi6tion from any eAistin- Court and there bein- this po:er0 the do6trine of pith and substan6e app2ies. It is su--ested that this ar-ument 6annot be formu2ated in 8ie: of the 2an-ua-e used in entry * in 'ist II. It is pointed out that entry * treats Dany of the matters in this 'istD as sub/e6t7matter D:ith respe6t toD :hi6h0 i.e.0 Do8erD :hi6h the Court may be authorised to eAer6ise /urisdi6tion and po:er. ;his 6onstru6tion of entry * is ob8ious2y fa22a6ious0 be6ause /urisdi6tion and po:ers of the Court Do8erD administration of /usti6e as a sub/e6t7matter is meanin-2ess and entry * 6an ne8er be read :ith entry 1. ;his 6ir6umstan6e a2one sho:s that the :ords D:ith respe6t toD o66urrin- in entry * in 'ist II :hen app2ied to entry 1 did not mean Do8erD but rea22y meant Dre2atin- toD or Dtou6hin-D or D6on6ernin-D or DforD administration of /usti6e0 and so read and understood0 entry *0 read :ith entry 1 in 'ist II0 62ear2y authorised the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to ma.e a 2a: 6ornerin- on or ta.in- a:ay from a Court -enera2 /urisdi6tion and po:ers re2atin- to or tou6hin- or 6on6ernin- or for administration of /usti6e. ;his 2ine of reasonin- has been so 8ery fu22y and 2u6id2y dea2t :ith by my brother Sastri J. that I ha8e nothinto add thereto and I respe6tfu22y adopt his reasonin-s and 6on62usion on the point. ;his ar-ument0 in my opinion0 reso28es a22 diffi6u2ties by 8estin- po:er in the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature to 6onfer -enera2 /urisdi6tion on Court 6onstituted and or-anised by it or effe6ti8e administration of /usti6e :hi6h :as made its spe6ia2 responsibi2ity. Any ar-ument as to de2iberate en6roa6hment that mi-ht ha8e been founded on the 1ro8iso to Se6tion $ of A6t :hi6h enab2ed the 1ro8in6ia2 @o8ernment to -i8e to the City Court e8en Admira2ty /urisdi6tion :hi6h :as a matter in 'ist I had been set at rest by the amendment of the 1ro8iso by Bombay A6t >>VI of 195). ;he impu-ned Bombay A6t may0 in my /ud-ment0 be :e22 supported as a 2a: made by the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature under entry * read :ith entry 1 in 'ist II and I ho2d a66ordin-2y. I0 therefore0 6on6ur in the order that this appea2 be a22o:ed. 1)1. In the 8ie: I ha8e ta.en0 it is not ne6essary to dis6uss the 6ontention of the 2earned Attorney7@enera2 that the Bombay City Ci8i2 Court A6t may be supported as a pie6e of 2e-is2ation made0 by the 1ro8in6ia2 'e-is2ature of Bombay under entry ( read :ith entry 15 in 1art I of 'ist III and I eApress no opinion on that point. 1)*. Appea2 a22o:ed. LegalCrystal - Indian Law Search Engine - www.legalcrystal.com