A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The constitutional validity of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 came under challenge in this landmark judgment. The case delved into the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature under the Government of India Act, 1935, particularly with respect to establishing courts and defining their jurisdiction. The key contention was whether the Act, by granting jurisdiction to the City Civil Court to hear cases of civil nature up to ₹25,000, encroached upon subjects reserved exclusively for the Union under List I, especially in regard to promissory notes. The question of whether Section 4 of the Act, which empowered the Provincial Government to enhance the jurisdictional limit by notification, constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority was also critically examined. The Supreme Court upheld the Act’s validity, applying the doctrine of pith and substance and the principle of conditional legislation. The judgment provided an authoritative interpretation of legislative entries, clarified the scope of “administration of justice” under List II, and established that incidental encroachment on Union subjects does not render a State law invalid if the law’s dominant character remains within the State List.
Keywords: Constitutional Validity, Legislative Competence, Bombay City Civil Court Act, Doctrine of Pith and Substance, Conditional Legislation, Delegation of Legislative Power, Government of India Act 1935, Jurisdiction of Courts.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title
State of Bombay v. Narothamdas Jethabai and Another
ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1950
iii) Judgement Date
20th December 1950
iv) Court
Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum
Saiyid Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea, S.R. Das JJ.
vi) Author
Justice Fazl Ali (concurrent opinions by all five judges)
vii) Citation
State of Bombay v. Narothamdas Jethabai, AIR 1951 SC 69; [1951] SCR 51
viii) Legal Provisions Involved
-
Government of India Act, 1935, Seventh Schedule
-
List I, Entries 28 & 53
-
List II, Entries 1 & 2
-
List III, Entry 15
-
-
Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, Sections 3, 4, and 12
ix) Judgments Overruled
None explicitly overruled
x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Constitutional Law, Legislative Competence, Judicial Jurisdiction, Delegated Legislation
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The case emerged from a suit instituted by Narothamdas Jethabai in the High Court of Bombay to recover ₹11,704 on a promissory note. The claim’s value exceeded the original jurisdictional limit of the Bombay City Civil Court, which was ₹10,000. However, the Government of Bombay had issued a notification under Section 4 of the 1948 Act increasing the limit to ₹25,000. The plaintiff challenged the Act and notification, arguing that the Provincial Legislature lacked the power to legislate on promissory notes—a Union subject under Entry 28 of List I—and that Section 4 unlawfully delegated legislative power. The State, through the Advocate General, intervened, and the matter was escalated to a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, leading to a seminal interpretation of legislative powers under the 1935 Act.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 established a new civil court for Greater Bombay. Under Section 3, this court had jurisdiction to try all civil suits and proceedings not exceeding ₹10,000, with some specified exceptions. Section 4 of the Act empowered the Provincial Government to increase this limit to ₹25,000 via notification. Section 12 barred the High Court’s jurisdiction in matters triable by the City Civil Court.
Pursuant to Section 4, the Provincial Government extended the pecuniary jurisdiction to ₹25,000. Narothamdas Jethabai, however, filed a suit in the Bombay High Court for a sum above ₹10,000, arguing that:
-
The Act was ultra vires since suits on promissory notes fall under Entry 28, List I, of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935.
-
Section 4 involved an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding Section 4 ultra vires but upheld the validity of the Act itself. The State of Bombay appealed to the Supreme Court.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 was ultra vires the Provincial Legislature under the Government of India Act, 1935, by encroaching on the Union List.
ii) Whether Section 4 of the Act constituted an impermissible delegation of legislative power to the Provincial Government.
iii) Whether the High Court of Bombay retained jurisdiction over suits exceeding ₹10,000 but under ₹25,000 after the notification under Section 4.
F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for the State of Bombay argued that:
-
The Act was validly enacted under Entry 1 and Entry 2 of List II, which provided the Provincial Legislature with authority over administration of justice and jurisdiction of courts in matters within List II.
-
The power to define court jurisdiction inherently resided in the Provincial Legislature, as long as the pith and substance of the law related to matters in List II.
-
Section 4 did not delegate legislative power. The Legislature set a jurisdictional cap of ₹25,000 and left it to the Government to operationalise it via notification, which is conditional legislation, not delegation.
-
The bar on jurisdiction under Section 12 was legally enforceable following the notification.
-
The doctrine of pith and substance, established in Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce, Khulna ([1947] F.C.R. 28), justified incidental encroachment upon subjects in List I when the primary subject falls within List II.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for the Respondents submitted that:
-
Entry 28 of List I (promissory notes) and Entry 53 (jurisdiction of courts regarding Union subjects) exclusively empowered the Union to legislate on such matters.
-
The Provincial Legislature could not validly enact a law conferring jurisdiction on courts for cases relating to promissory notes.
-
Section 4 allowed the Provincial Government to decide jurisdiction limits without a fresh legislative act, amounting to unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.
-
The notification under Section 4 was thus void, and the High Court retained jurisdiction over the suit.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Entry 1, List II: “Administration of justice; constitution and organization of all courts except the Federal Court.”
ii) Entry 2, List II: “Jurisdiction and powers of all courts except the Federal Court, with respect to any of the matters in this List.”
iii) Entry 28, List I: “Promissory notes and other like instruments.”
iv) Entry 53, List I: “Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the Federal Court, with respect to any of the matters in this List.”
v) Section 9, Civil Procedure Code: “Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those barred.”
I) JUDGEMENT
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
i) The Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 was held intra vires the Provincial Legislature. The Court ruled that the “pith and substance” of the Act concerned administration of justice, a State subject under Entry 1 and Entry 2 of List II. The incidental effect on promissory note-related suits (a Union subject) did not invalidate the law.
ii) Section 4 was not a case of delegation but conditional legislation. The Legislature decided the maximum limit (₹25,000) and only authorised the Government to notify its enforcement upon satisfaction of conditions.
iii) The High Court’s jurisdiction was barred once the notification was validly issued under Section 4. Hence, the suit filed in the High Court was not maintainable.
b. OBITER DICTA
i) Fazl Ali J. noted that it would be absurd to assume that Provincial Courts cannot adjudicate upon any matter listed under List I unless expressly empowered by Parliament. The framers of the 1935 Act did not intend such a dysfunctional judicial structure.
c. GUIDELINES
-
Legislative entries should be interpreted broadly and liberally.
-
Incidental encroachment does not invalidate a law if its main subject lies within the legislature’s domain.
-
Conditional legislation is permissible; mere implementation mechanisms do not amount to delegation of legislative power.
-
The power to administer justice includes jurisdictional power, unless explicitly excluded by a valid Central law.
J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
This ruling clarified the limits and scope of legislative powers in a federal structure. It established that State Legislatures can set up and vest jurisdiction in courts for general civil matters even if some cases involve subjects in the Union List. The judgment also reaffirmed the doctrine of conditional legislation, distinguishing it from impermissible delegation. By invoking legislative practice and judicial doctrines, the Court harmonised overlapping entries, preserving both federal supremacy and State autonomy. This case is a cornerstone for understanding federal legislative competence in India under the Government of India Act, 1935, and remains relevant under the Constitution of India.
K) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
i) Queen v. Burah, (1878) 3 App Cas 889
ii) Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce, Khulna, [1947] F.C.R. 28
iii) United Provinces v. Atiqa Begum, [1940] F.C.R. 110
iv) Mulchand Kundanmull Jagtiani v. Raman, (1950) 51 Bom. L.R. 86
v) Jatindra Nath Gupta v. Province of Bihar, [1949] F.C.R. 595
b. Important Statutes Referred
i) Government of India Act, 1935
ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908
iii) Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948
