LL Part 2

Jurisdiction:-
- Jurisdiction is derived from Latin term “juris” and “Dicta” which
means “I Speak by the law”
- It signifies the power, authority of the court to adjudicate the rights.
- The existence of fact which gives authority to a court to try and
dispose particular legal proceeding is referred as “Jurisdictional Fact”.
kinds of jurisdiction of courts
Jurisdiction of a court is of three types:(a) territorial or local
jurisdiction;(b) pecuniary jurisdiction; and(c) jurisdiction as to subject-
matter
A) Civil and Criminal Court:-
Civil jurisdiction is that which concerns and deals with disputes of a
civil nature. Criminal jurisdiction, on the other hand, relates to crimes
and punishes offenders.
Principles of Civil jurisdiction:-
1) It is well-settled that for deciding the jurisdiction of a civil court, the averments
made in the plaint are material. To put it differently, the jurisdiction of a court
should normally be decided on the basis of the case put forward by the plaintiff in
his plaint and not by the defendant in his written statement
• Abdullah v. Galappa 1985
The plaintiff filed a suit in a civil court for declaration of title and for possession
treating the defendants as trespassers. The defendants contended that the civil
court had no jurisdiction since he was a tenant. Negativing the contention of the
defendants, the Supreme Court observed: "There is no denying the fact that the
allegations made in plaint decide the forum. The jurisdiction does not depend
upon the defence taken by the defendants in the written statement. On a reading
of the plaint as a whole it is evident that the plaintiff had filed a suit giving rise to
present appeal treating the defendants as trespassers as they denied the title of
the plaintiff. We, are, therefore, of the considered opinion that on the allegations
made in the plaint the suit was cognizable by the civil court.
2) If the jurisdictional fact does not exist, the court or tribunal cannot act. If
it wrongly assumes existence of such fact, writ can be issued. The principle
underlying is that by erroneously presuming such existence, a subordinate
court or inferior tribunal cannot confer upon itself jurisdiction which
otherwise it does not possess.
• ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu 1994
Though no cause of action had arisen in Calcutta, the High Court entertained
a writ petition and granted interim relief to the petitioner. Observing that it
was a "a great pity" that one of the premier High Courts had developed a
tendency to assume jurisdiction on unsustainable grounds. The Supreme
Court said: “We are greatly pained to say so but if we do not strongly
deprecate the growing tendency we will be failing in our duty to the
institution and the system of administration of justice.”
3) Where a court lacks inherent jurisdiction-whether pecuniary or
territorial or the subject matter jurisdiction to try a matter, express
consent of the parties can not create it.
- Patel Roadways Limited vs Prasad Trading Company (1991)
In this case parties have entered into a contract that in case of dispute
Bombay High Court will have jurisdiction. This court by its directions
could not confer jurisdiction on high court of Bombay to try cases for
which it did not possess.
4) Relying on the maxim ex dolo malo non oritur action (no court will lend
its aid to a man whose cause of action aroused upon an immoral or an
illegal act), agreement which absolutely ousted the jurisdiction of a court
having jurisdiction to decide the matter, would be unlawful and void under
section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

• New Moga Transport Co. vs United Indian Assuarnce Co. 2004:-

There was a contract for construction of work between A and B. B's principal
place of business was at Varanasi. The parties agreed as the contract have
been entered into at Bombay and the court in Bombay alone shall have
jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between the parties. On disputes being
arisen. A approached the court at Varanasi which was objected by B relying
upon the agreement between the parties. The question before the court was
whether the parties could have to select a particular forum when two or
more courts had jurisdiction to try the suit. Answering in the affirmative,
the Apex Court stated; "It is not open to the parties by agreement to confer
jurisdiction on a court which it does not possess under the Code. But
where two courts or more have under the Code of Civil Procedure
jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding, an agreement between the parties
that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such courts is valid.
Such an agreement does not contravene Section 23 of the Contract Act”
6) When a court of exclusive jurisdiction has to decide a particular dispute, it has
jurisdiction to consider the concerned issue only prima facie and the jurisdiction of
a civil court to decide other issues finally is not taken away, nor such a finding of
the court of limited jurisdiction would operate res judicata in subsequent
proceedings.
• Life Insurance Corporation of India v. India Automobiles 1990:-
The Supreme Court held that if the Rent Controller determines fair rent of the
premises in accordance with the relevant Rent Act, it is not open to the civil court
to re-determine the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord and its jurisdiction is
clearly excluded. The jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded on the
determination of the fair rent of the premises, since that question squarely and
exclusively falls within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. But his decision is
not final and cannot preclude a party from contending in a civil court that he is not
tenant only but the owner of the property and that he should not be asked to pay
rent for his own property to someone else.
Principles of Criminal jurisdiction:-
• Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise for
every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be
guilty within [India] : Territorial principal
• Objective principal
• Any person liable, by any [Indian law], to be tried for an offence committed
beyond [India] shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any
act committed beyond [India] in the same manner as if such act had been
committed within [India].:-
• The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by—
(1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;
(2) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.
(3) any person in any place without and beyond India committing offence targeting
a computer resource located in India.
B) Territorial or local jurisdiction :-
Every court has its own local or territorial limits beyond which it cannot
exercise its jurisdiction. These limits are fixed by the Government. The
District Judge has to exercise jurisdiction within his district and not out
it. The High Court has jurisdiction over the territory of a State within
which it is situate and not beyond it.
D) Original and appellate jurisdiction
Original jurisdiction is jurisdiction inherent in, or conferred upon, a court of
first instance. In the exercise of that jurisdiction, a court of first instance
decides suits, petitions or applications. Appellate jurisdiction is the power
or authority conferred upon a superior court to re-hear by way of appeal,
of causes which have been tried and decided by courts of original
jurisdiction
• There are some courts that are courts of original jurisdiction only.
• There are some courts that are courts only of appellate jurisdiction, and
not of original jurisdiction
• There are other courts which have both original and appellate jurisdiction.
E) Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction
Exclusive jurisdiction is that which confers sole power on one court or
tribunal to try, deal with and decide a case. No other court or
authority can render a judgment or give a decision in the case or class
of cases. Concurrent or co-ordinate jurisdiction is jurisdiction which
may be exercised by different courts or authorities between the same
parties, at the same time and over same subject-matter. It is, therefore,
open to a litigant to invoke jurisdiction of any of such court or
authority.
F) Ordinary Original and Extraordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
In the exercise of its ordinary original jurisdiction, a chartered high
court tries and determines suits instituted in that court., a chartered
high court has the power to remove any suits from a court subordinate
to it, and to try it itself, if it thinks proper to do so for the purpose of
justice. By special Act, Delhi high court (besides chartered high courts)
also have original civil jurisdiction.
G) Jurisdiction as to subject-matter (Section 9 of CPC)
- Different courts have been empowered to decide different types of
suits.
- Thus, Presidency Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to try suits for
specific performance of a contract, partition of immovable property,
foreclosure or redemption of a mortgage, etc.
- Similarly, in respect of testamentary matters, divorce cases, probate
proceedings, insolvency proceedings, etc., only the District Judge or
Civil Judge (Senior Division) has jurisdiction.
Lack of Jurisdiction and Irregular exercise of
Jurisdiction
• A civil court has the inherent jurisdiction to decide as to whether it has
jurisdiction in a matter or not and in deciding the question of jurisdiction,
the substance of the pleadings and not their form must be considered.
• If it is found, on a trial on the merits so far as this issue of jurisdiction goes,
that the facts by the plaintiff are not true and the facts alleged by the
defendants are true, and that the case is not cognizable by the court, there
will be two kinds of orders to be passed. If the jurisdiction is only one
relating to territorial limits or pecuniary limits, it will be ordered to be
returned for presentation to the proper court. If, on the other hand, it is
found that, having regard to the nature of the suit. it not Cognizable by
the class of court to which the court belongs, the plaintiff's suit will have
to be dismissed in its entirety.
• . "Lack of Jurisdiction and Irregular exercise of Jurisdiction“ are
different.
• “If The plaintiff frames his suit in a manner not warranted by the
facts, and goes for his relief to a court which cannot grant him relief
on true facts, he will have his suit dismissed. Then there will be no
question of returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court,
for the plaint, as framed, would not justify the other kind of court to
grant him the relief.
- A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is coram non judice
(not before a judge)
• A court cannot adjudicate upon a subject-matter, which does not fall
within its province as limited or defined by law.
• A jurisdiction as to the subject-matter of a suit is regarded as essential,
for jurisdiction over the subject-matter is a condition precedent or a sine
qua non of authority over the parties and the matter, and a judgment
given, order made or decree passed is absolutely null and void, which
may be set aside in appeal, review or revision.
• it is the defendant who raises an objection as to the jurisdiction of the
court to entertain the suit or other proceedings entertained at the instance
of the plaintiff. The plaintiff i.e. a person, who initiates a proceeding in a
court of his own choice cannot subsequently after the case is decided
against him turn round and question its jurisdiction to entertain the suit or
other proceeding
• If the court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit, anything done by it, by
assuming jurisdiction would be null and void.
• In R. Venkataswami v. South India Viscose Ltd. (1985)
Interim injunction was granted by the City Civil Court, Bombay restraining
the company from holding its Annual General Meeting. The company held
the meeting in contravention of the order of injunction as according to it, the
City Civil Court, Bombay had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Interim
injunction was subsequently vacated. A who contested the election as a
Director and lost, contended that even though at a subsequent stage, the
City Court, Bombay held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, an
order granting interim injunction earlier was in force and was, therefore,
binding and no meeting could have been convened.