jurisdiction of bench of HC and principal seat of HC to decide particular matter

[bpagrawal]

Leading judgment of justice Chagla on jurisdiction of bench of HC and principal seat of HC to decide particular matter


In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan, reported in AIR
1983 SC 46 three Judges of the Apex Court in paragraph 26 relied on the ratio
of the decision rendered by Chagla, C.J. at the Bombay High Court.  It would
be appropriate to quote paragraph 26 in its entirety, which reads thus :

“26.As to the scope and effect of sub­s. (3) of s. 51 of the Act, 
the question came up for consideration before Chagla, C.J. and 
Badkas, J. in Seth Manji Dana v. Commissioner of Income­tax, 
Bombay, Civil Appeal No.995 of 1957(Bom),  decided on July 
22,   1958.  This  was   an  application  by which  the  validity of 
Rule 254 of the Appellate Side Rules was challenged insofar as 
it provided that all income­tax references presented at Nagpur 
should   be   heard   at   the   principal   seat   of   the   High   Court   at 
Bombay, and the contention was that the result of this rule 
was   that   it   excluded   income­tax   references   from   the 
jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court   functioning   at   Nagpur.   In
repelling the contention, Chagla, C. J. observed :

"Legally, the position is quite clear. Under section 51 (3)
of the States Reorganization Act, the Judges sitting at Nagpur 
constitute a part of the High Court of Bombay. They are as 
much a part of the High Court of Bombay, and if we might say
so distinguished part of the High Court of Bombay, as if they 
were sitting under the same roof under which Judges function
in Bombay. All that happens is that the Chief Justice, under 
the powers given to him under the Letters Patent distributes 
the   work   to   various   Judges   and   various   Divisional   Benches, 
and acting under that power he distributes certain work to the 
Judges sitting at Nagpur."
He then continued:
"All that rule 254 does is to permit as a matter of convenience 
certain   matters   to   be   presented   at   Nagpur   to   the   Deputy
Registrar. If rule 254 had not been enacted, all matters would 
have   to   be   presented   at   Bombay   and  then   the   Chief  Justice 
would   have   distributed   those   matters   to   different   Judges, 
whether sitting in Bombay or at Nagpur. It is out of regard and 
consideration   for   the   people   of   Vidarbha   and   for   their 
convenience that this rule is enacted, so that litigants should 
not be put to the inconvenience of going to Bombay to present 
certain   matters.   Therefore,   this   particular   rule   has   nothing
whatever   to   do   either   with   section   51   (3)   of   the   States 
Reorganisation Act or with the Constitution." With regard to 
Rule 254, he went on to say :
"Now, having disposed of the legal aspect of the matter, we turn 
to the practical aspect, and let us consider whether this rule 
inconveniences the people at Nagpur. If it does, it would certain
call for an amendment of that rule. Now, there is particular 
reason   why   all   Income   Tax   References   should   be   heard   in 
Bombay and that reason is this. The High Court of Bombay for 

He then concluded :
many   years,   rightly   or   wrongly,   has   followed   a   particular 
policy with regard to Income Tax References and that policy is 
that the  same   Bench  should   hear  Income   Tax References,   so 
that there should be a continuity with regard to the decisions 
given on these References. I know that other High Courts have 
referred to this policy with praise because they have realised 
that the result of this policy has been that Income Tax Law has 
been laid down in a manner which has received commendation 
from various sources. The other reason is and we hope we are 
not   mistaken   in   saying   so   that   the   number   of   Income   Tax 
References from Nagpur are very few. If the number was large, 
undoubtedly a very strong case would be made out for these 
cases to be heard at Nagpur."

"After all, Courts exist for the convenience of the litigants and 
not in order to maintain any particular system of law or any 
particular system of administration. Whenever a Court finds 
that   a   particular   rule   does   not   serve   the   convenience   of 
litigants, the Court should be always prepared to change the 
rule."
The ratio to be deduced from the decision of Chagla, C. J. is 
that the   Judges   and   Division   Courts   sitting   at  Nagpur   were 
functioning as if they were the Judges and Division Courts of
the High Court at Bombay.”



MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.341 OF 2013.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
       

Mrs. Sayali wife of Swapnil Kuber,



// VERSUS //
Swapnil S/o. Harischandra Kuber,


CORAM  :   A.B.CHAUDHARI, J.
DATED    :   SEPTEMBER 19, 2013.
Citation; 2014(5) ALLMR97
http://www.lawweb.in/2014/09/leadding-judgment-of-justice-chagla-on.html