Union of India Vs R Thiyagarajan on 3 April 2020

This Judgment by Justice Deepak Gupta from a 2-judge bench held in Para 18 that,

18. We also are of the view that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in matters like this. The High Court exercise its jurisdiction only over State(s) of which it is the High Court. It has no jurisdiction for the rest of the country. Matters like the present may be pending in various parts of the country. In the present case, matter had been decided by the Delhi High Court but some other High Court may or may not have taken different view. The High Court of Madras could not have passed such order. It has virtually usurped the jurisdiction of other High Courts in the country. It is true that sometimes this Court has ordered that all similarly situated employees may be granted similar relief but the High Court does not have the benefit of exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution. In any event, this Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire country whereas the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State(s) of which it is the High Court. The High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it only affects the employees of the State falling within its jurisdiction but, in our opinion, it could not have passed such an order in the case of employees where pan India repercussions would be involved.

This effectively means that, to challenge a Central Act such as Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 which has ramifications to entire country, one can not invoke the Writ jurisdiction of a High Court. This implies that, one has to go to Supreme Court only. This is quite contrary to the obiter dicta from Kusum Ingots judgement here given by a 3-judge bench.

Citations: [

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95720998/ or

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

M/S. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd Vs Union Of India and Anr on 28 April, 2004

Posted on October 5, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment (per Obiter Dicta), Apex Court has held that,

A parliamentary legislation when it receives the assent of the President of India and is published in the Official Gazette, unless specifically excluded, will apply to the entire territory of India. If passing of a legislation gives rise to a cause of action, a writ petition questioning the constitutionality thereof can be filed in any High Court of the country. It is not so done because a cause of action will arise only when the provisions of the Act or some of them which were implemented shall give rise to civil or evil consequences to the petitioner. A writ court, it is well settled, would not determine a constitutional question in a vacuum.

The court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction. An order passed on writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act whether interim or final keeping in view the provisions contained in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act.

Citations: [2004 SCALE 5 304], [2004 AIR SC 2321], [2004 SCC 6 254], [2004 BOMCR SC SUPP 2 654], [2004 AIR SC 2766], [2004 SUPREME 3 757], [2004 JT SUPP 1 475], [2004 ALLMR SC 5 700], [2004 DLT 111 480], [2004 COMPCAS 120 672], [2004 ELT 168 3], [2004 AIC SC 19 730], [2004 BC 3 56], [2004 COMPLJ SC 3 1], [2004 CTC 3 365], [2004 DRJ 77 317], [2004 ECR SC 114 1013], [2005 ECR SC 118 151], [2004 ELT SC 186 3], [2004 JCR SC 3 92], [2004 JT SUPPL SC 1 475], [2004 PLR 138 626]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1876565/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae06e4b0149711412bc2

See this, this, this and this Supreme Court Judgments. Many High Courts have relied on the above aspect of this Judgment here.

Patil Vijaykumar and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr on 10 August, 1984

Posted on October 5, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

This in the judgment of Karnataka High Court on a Tax matter.

Key passage is this one:

But we wish to add that although a decision of another High Court is not binding on this court, we see no reason for not accepting, with respectful caution, any help they can give in the elucidation of questions which arise before this court.

Patil Vijaykumar and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr on 10 August, 1984

Citation: [(1985) 151 ITR 48 (KAR)]

External Link: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/375809/patil-vijaykumar-vs-union-india

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

The Maharashtra Government Vs Shri Rajaram Digamber Padamwar on 8 April, 2011

Posted on July 29, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

A Trial judge is taken to task by Bombay High Court for the following vomitings…

From Para 42,

42. Before departing, it is inevitable to make mention that, the learned A.P.P. while making the arguments before the learned Trial Judge cited the Ruling of Kerala High Court in the case of Food Inspector vs James, (reported in Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases) at 1998 (1) P.320, and while discussing the observations made in the said Ruling, the learned Trial Judge has observed in para no.31 of the impugned judgment that :
“With great respect, I do not agree with the ‘view taken’ and observations made by Their Lordships in the above case law. Moreover, the said case law is admittedly of Kerala High Court and the same is not binding on this court.”

One more, from Para 43,

43. Moreover, while making submissions before the learned Trial Judge, learned A.P.P. also cited Ruling in the case of Rambhai vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Reported in Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases) at 1991 (1) P. 6, as stated in para 34 of the impugned judgment, but the learned Trial Judge, after considering the said ratio laid down in the said Ruling, observed in para no.35 of the impugned judgment that :
“After going through the observations made by Their Lordships in the above case law, I am of the opinion that though the Ruling is applicable to the present case, however, according to me, with great respect the view taken in the observations of the Ruling is not correct.“

Final Touch:

From Para 44,

44. It manifestly appears from the text and tenor of the observations made by the learned Trial Judge in para nos. 31 and 35 of the impugned judgment that same do not conform with the judicial discipline and propriety, and apparently amount to disrespect, and therefore, the Registrar General is directed to take suitable action against the concerned Judge, if he is in Judicial Service.

The Maharashtra Government Vs Shri Rajaram Digamber Padamwar on 8 April, 2011

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: One State High Court Decisions Binding On Other State High Courts

Union of India Vs R Thiyagarajan on 3 April 2020

M/S. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd Vs Union Of India and Anr on 28 April, 2004

Patil Vijaykumar and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr on 10 August, 1984

The Maharashtra Government Vs Shri Rajaram Digamber Padamwar on 8 April, 2011