Scribd
Upload
22 views

(65.057) Suits Expressly Barred

Uploaded by

devyanshisharma10554
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views

(65.057) Suits Expressly Barred

Uploaded by

devyanshisharma10554
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

[65.

057] Suits expressly barred


Halsbury's Laws of India (Civil Procedure) 2nd Edn

Halsbury's Laws of India (Civil Procedure) 2nd Edn > Halsbury's Laws of India (Civil Procedure,
Vol 5) 2nd ed > 3. JURISDICTION > (1) GENERAL PRINCIPLES > B. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
> (ii) Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts

65 - Halsbury's Laws of India (Civil Procedure, Vol 5) 2nd ed

3. JURISDICTION

(1) GENERAL PRINCIPLES

B. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts

(ii) Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts

[65.057] Suits expressly barred


A suit is expressly barred when it is barred by a statute1. A legislature can bar the jurisdiction of civil courts, in suits
of a civil nature2, provided it keeps itself within its legislative competence and does not contravene the provisions of
the Constitution3. The mere conferment of a special jurisdiction on a tribunal in respect of a matter does not by itself
exclude the jurisdiction of the civil courts and a suit in a civil court will always lie to question an order of the tribunal,
even if its order is expressly or by necessary implication made final, if the tribunal abuses its powers or acts in
violation of its provisions4. Where a court of limited jurisdiction has the power to decide an issue incidentally, its
jurisdiction to decide the question finally is not taken away5.

If there exists any ambiguity in the phraseology of a statute regarding the exclusion of the jurisdiction of a court it
must be interpreted in favour of retaining the jurisdiction of the court6.

1 See eg the Representation of the People Act, 1951 section 170 (no civil court is to have the jurisdiction to question the
legality of any action taken or of any decision given by the returning officer or by any other person appointed under the
Act in connection with an election: see [125] elections); the Representation of the People Act, 1950 section 30; the
Income Tax Act, 1961 section 293 (see [280] taxation and revenue); the Wakf Act, 1995 section 85 (see trusts and
charities [290.449]).
2 For the meaning of “suits of a civil nature” see [65.055].
3 CIT, Bhubaneshwar v Parmeshwari Devi Sultania, AIR 1998 SC 1276 [LNIND 1998 SC 310]: (1998) 3 SCC 481
[LNIND 1998 SC 310]; Sayed Mohomed Baquir El Edroos (decd) by lrs v State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 SC 2016 [LNIND
1981 SC 405]: (1981) 4 SCC 383 [LNIND 1981 SC 405] : [1982] 1 SCR 882 [LNIND 1981 SC 405]; Gurucharan Singh v
Kamla Singh, AIR 1977 SC 5 [LNIND 1975 SC 333]at 12 : (1976) 2 SCC 152 [LNIND 1975 SC 333] : [1976] 1 SCR
739 [LNIND 1975 SC 333]; Bata Shoe Co Ltd v Jabalpur Corp, AIR 1977 SC 955 [LNIND 1977 SC 127]at 963 : (1977)
2 SCC 472 [LNIND 1977 SC 127] : [1977] 3 SCR 182 [LNIND 1977 SC 127]; Mohammed Mahmood v Tikam Das, AIR
1966 SC 210 [LNIND 1965 SC 154]at 211 : [1966] 1 SCR 128 [LNIND 1965 SC 154]; State of Vindhya Pradesh (now
Madhya Pradesh) v Moradhwaj Singh, AIR 1960 SC 796 [LNIND 1960 SC 54]: [1960] 3 SCR 106 [LNIND 1960 SC 54]
: (1960) SCJ 754 [LNIND 1960 SC 54]. See also Annamreddi Bodayya v Lokanarapu Ramaswamy (decd) by lrs, AIR
Page 2 of 2
[65.057] Suits expressly barred

1984 SC 1726 : (1984) Supp SCC 391 : (1985) UJ 130; Umrao Singh Ajit Singhji v Bhagwati Singh Balbir Singh, AIR
1956 SC 15.
4 Firm Seth Radha Kishan (decd) represented by Hari Kishan v Administrator Municipal Committee, Ludhiana, AIR 1963
SC 1547 [LNIND 1963 SC 58]at 1551 : [1964] 2 SCR 273 [LNIND 1963 SC 58] : (1963) 50 ITR 187 [LNIND 1963 SC
58]. See also the observations of Shelat J in UOI v Tarachand Gupta & Bros, AIR 1971 SC 1558 [LNIND 1971 SC 79]:
(1971) 1 SCC 486 [LNIND 1971 SC 79] : [1971] 3 SCR 557 [LNIND 1971 SC 79] and of Lord Reid in Anisminic Ltd v
Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 : [1969] 1 All ER 208(1969) 2 WLR 163 , HL; Punjab State
Electricity Board v Ashwani Kumar, (1997) 5 SCC 120 : (1997) 5 JT 182 [LNIND 2010 SC 590] : (1997) 3 Scale 360;
Krishan Lal v State of J&K, (1994) 4 SCC 422 [LNIND 1994 SC 277] at 427–428; Firm of Illuri Subbayya Chetty & Sons
v State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 322 [LNIND 1963 SC 336]at 324 : [1964] 1 SCR 752 [LNIND 1963 SC 336] :
(1963) 50 ITR 93 [LNIND 1963 SC 336].
5 Life Insurance Corp of India v India Automobiles & Co, AIR 1991 SC 884 [LNIND 1990 SC 959]: (1990) 4 SCC 286
[LNIND 1990 SC 959] : [1990] 3 SCR 545 [LNIND 1990 SC 959].
6 Abdul Waheed Khan v Bhawani, AIR 1966 SC 1718 [LNIND 1966 SC 56]at 1719 : [1966] 3 SCR 617 [LNIND 1966 SC
56]; State of Tamil Nadu v Ramalinga Samigal Madam, AIR 1986 SC 794 [LNIND 1985 SC 163]: (1985) 4 SCC 10
[LNIND 1985 SC 163] : [1985] Supp 1 SCR 63; Dhulabhai v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78 [LNIND 1968
SC 99]: [1968] 3 SCR 662 [LNIND 1968 SC 99] : (1966) 22 STC 416; Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd (Pvt) v Municipal
Committee, Dhamangaon, AIR 1966 SC 249 [LNIND 1965 SC 105]at 261 : [1965] 3 SCR 499 [LNIND 1965 SC 105] :
(1966) 59 ITR 73 [LNIND 1965 SC 105].

End of Document

You might also like