Facts in the Case
- A civil dispute arose between parties concerning a matter that was addressed under a special or statutory enactment.
- One party raised the issue that the civil court lacks jurisdiction, claiming that the statute bars civil court intervention.
- However, the statute in question did not expressly mention that civil courts are barred from entertaining such matters.
Issues in the Case
- Can the jurisdiction of civil courts be excluded simply because a special statute exists?
- What are the legal requirements to exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts?
- Does the mere creation of a special tribunal or authority necessarily exclude civil courts’ jurisdiction?
Principles Applied
1. Presumption in Favor of Civil Court Jurisdiction
- Under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature, unless their jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred.
- There is a strong presumption in favor of jurisdiction of civil courts. Any exclusion must be clearly established by law.
2. Express or Implied Bar Must Be Clear
- Jurisdiction can be excluded in two ways:
- Express Exclusion: When a statute clearly states that civil courts do not have jurisdiction.
- Implied Exclusion: When the scheme of the Act and its remedies show that civil court interference would be contradictory to legislative intent.
- Mere creation of tribunals or administrative authorities is not sufficient to exclude jurisdiction.
3. Landmark Case: Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1969 SC 78)
The Supreme Court laid down important principles:
- If a statute gives a finality to the orders of special tribunals, civil courts’ jurisdiction must be held to be excluded only if:
- The statute provides adequate remedy to challenge the order.
- There is clear legislative intent to bar civil court jurisdiction.
- However, in cases of violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, or fraud, the civil court’s jurisdiction cannot be excluded.
Judgment / Conclusion
- The exclusion of civil court jurisdiction is not readily inferred. There must be either:
- An express statutory provision, or
- An inevitable implication based on the language and scheme of the statute.
- If there is ambiguity, courts will lean in favor of preserving civil jurisdiction.
- In the absence of such exclusion, the civil court retains jurisdiction over the matter.