Jitendra Chahuan College of Law

12/7/2019

Legal Language Project

on Jurisdiction FY -LLB
(2019-20)

Submitted to Dr. Priya Shah & Prof. Sneha Anil Kumar

Submitted by Akshat Tiwary (D-210)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SERIAL TOPIC PAGE NO

NO
1. Aim & Objective 2

2. Introduction 3

3. How Is Territory Decided 4

4. Types of Jurisdiction 5

5. Jurisdiction of Courts in case of Writ Petition 8

6. Jurisdiction of Court in case of Arbitration Disputes 8

7. International and Municipal Jurisdiction 8

8. Conclusion 10

9. Bibliography 11

Aim & Objective:

Page | 1
The aim of the project is to have deeper and detailed understanding of the term ‘Jurisdiction’
under India law.

Introduction

Page | 2
Every Litigant before proceeding with his/her claim is faced with one common question as to
which court shall have jurisdiction to hear and finally adjudicate the dispute. Before
proceeding further, we need to understand the meaning of the term ‘Jurisdiction.’ Jurisdiction
can be defined as the limit of a judicial authority or the extent to which a court of law can
exercise its authority over suits, cases, appeals etc. Jurisdiction draws its substance from
public international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law and the powers of the executive
and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its
native society.
The rationale behind introducing the concept of jurisdiction in law is that a court should be
able to try and adjudicate only in those matters with which it has some connection or which
fall within the geographical or political or pecuniary limits of its authority. A 1921 Calcutta
High Court judgment in the case of Hriday Nath Roy v. Ram Chandra1 sought to explain the
meaning of the term ‘jurisdiction’ in a great detail. The bench observed:
‘An examination of the cases in the books discloses numerous attempts to define the term
‘jurisdiction’, which has been stated to be ‘the power to hear and determine issues of law
and fact;’ ‘the authority by which three judicial officers take cognizance of and decide
cause;’ ‘the authority to hear and decide a legal controversy;’ ‘the power to hear and
determine the subject-matter in controversy between parties to a suit and to adjudicate or
exercise any judicial power over them;’ ‘the power to hear, determine and pronounce
judgment on the issues before the Court;’ ‘the power or authority which is conferred upon a
Court by the Legislature to hear and determine causes between parties and to carry the
judgments into effect;’ ‘the power to enquire into the facts, to apply the law, to pronounce the
judgment and to carry it into execution.’
In simple words jurisdiction can be defined as the limit of judicial authority or the extent to
which a court of law can exercise its authority over suits, cases, appeals and other
proceedings. The rationale behind introducing the concept of jurisdiction in law is that a court
should be able to try and adjudicate only in those matters with which it has some connection
or which falls within the territorial or pecuniary limits of its authority.
Administer of justice is the most important function of the state. For this purpose, the
constitution has set up various classes of courts. The Supreme Court being the apex court,
followed by 24 High Courts which have been created by the constitution of India and their
jurisdiction and powers have been defined by the constitution. Apart from the Supreme Court
and High Court, the following criminal courts have been described under section 6 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973;
 Court of Session
 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, and in any metropolitan area, Metropolitan
Magistrate
 Judicial Magistrates of Second Class
 Executive Magistrates.

How Is Territory Decided

Territory of a court is decided after taking into account several factors, which includes:
1
ILR 1920 48 CAL 138

Page | 3
In case of Immovable Property:
If the suit is with regard to recovery, rent, partition, sale, redemption, determination of right
of immovable property, it shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the property is situated.
Immovable Property Situated Within the Jurisdiction of Different Courts:
In such a case the suit may be instituted in any court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated.
In case of Dispute Between Two Or More Persons with Respect to Movable Property,
Business or Any Other Wrong Done:
Where a wrong has been caused to a person, or any damage has been caused to a movable
property, then the suit may be instituted either,
1. In the place, where wrong or damage has been caused, or
2. In the place, where defendant (the person who caused the loss) resides.
Where there is a dispute in business, agreement or any other kind of civil dispute, except
matrimonial matter, then the suit may be instituted either,
1. In a place, where the defendant resides, or carries on business, or
2. In a place, where the cause of action has arisen, i.e. where the dispute or wrong took
place
In case of Matrimonial Dispute:
Where a dispute arises between Husband and wife with regards to their marital life, then the
case may be filed either:
1. In the place where marriage was solemnized, or;
2. In the place, where opposite party is residing, or;
3. In the place, where Husband and Wife last resided together, or;
4. In the place, where person filing the case is residing, provided that,

1. Opposite party has not been heard of as alive for the last Seven years, or
2. Opposite party resides outside the jurisdiction of Hindu Marriage Act 1955
Courts may also have jurisdiction that is exclusive, or concurrent (shared). Where a court has
exclusive jurisdiction over a territory or a subject matter, it is the only court that is authorized
to address that matter. Where a court has concurrent or shared jurisdiction, more than one
court can adjudicate the matter.

Types of Jurisdiction
In India, there are mainly 5 types of jurisdiction which can be classified as follows:

Page | 4
Original jurisdiction
It refers to the authority of a court to take cognizance of cases which can be tried and
adjudicated upon in those courts in the first instance itself. It is different from appellate
jurisdiction in the sense that in case of the latter, the courts entertain appeals from the decree
passed by subordinate court, whereas in case of the former the cases are tried for the very first
time. For example, the High Court of Allahabad has original jurisdiction with respect to
matrimonial, testamentary, probate and company matters. Certain matters on criminal or civil
side cannot be tried by a court inferior in jurisdiction to a district court if the particular
enactment makes a provision to the effect. This gives the District Court original jurisdiction
in such matters.
Appellate jurisdiction
It refers to the authority of a court to rehear or review a case that has already been decided by
a lower court. Appellate jurisdiction is generally vested in higher courts. In India, both the
High Courts and the Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction to hear matters which are
brought in the form of appeal before them. They can either overrule the judgment of the
lower court or uphold it. At times they can also modify the sentence. On the original side of
the High Court, one finds suits filed in the High court itself, that is, not in appeal from the
lower court. When exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the High court disposes appeals
against decrees passed by subordinate courts.
The District Court or Additional District court exercises appellate jurisdiction over all
subordinate courts in the district on both civil and criminal matters. These subordinate courts
usually consist of a Junior Civil Judge court, Principal Junior civil Judge court, Senior civil
judge court (often called sub court) in the order of ascendancy on the civil side and the
Judicial Magistrate Court of IInd Class, Judicial Magistrate Court of Ist class, Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court in the order of ascendancy on the criminal side.
Subject-matter jurisdiction
It can be defined as the authority vested in a court of law to try and hear cases of a particular
type and pertaining to a particular subject matter. For example, District Forums established
under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have jurisdiction over only consumer-related cases.
It cannot try criminal cases.
Territorial jurisdiction
Under this type of jurisdiction, geographical limits of a court’s authority are clearly
delineated and specified. It cannot exercise authority beyond that territorial/geographical
limit. For example, if a certain offence is committed in Madhya Pradesh, only the courts of
law within the boundaries of Madhya Pradesh can try and adjudicate upon the same unless
otherwise provided for in a particular piece of legislation. The rule that a court cannot try a
suit for immovable property situated beyond the limits of its jurisdiction refers to the
territorial jurisdiction.
Territorial jurisdiction over a consumer complaint would lie with the Consumer Forum
situated at any place where any causes of action arises. A consumer would be legally entitled
to pursue his remedy within the territorial jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum having
appropriate pecuniary powers at any of the aforementioned places. This is in addition to the

Page | 5
other places where a consumer may choose to file a complaint in accordance with the other
provisions of Section 11 (2) of the C.P. Act.
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of Civil Court
Every civil suit in regard to recovery/partition/sale, mortgage or redemption/determination of
any right or claim/compensation for wrong to immovable property or recovery of movable
property shall be instituted in the court of law within whose local limits the property is
situated. In case, the suit is directed to obtain relief or compensation in respect to the property
held by defendant then, the suit maybe instituted either in the court within local limits the
property is situated in or within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on
business.
Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) confers jurisdiction over the civil courts
to adjudicate upon all suits of civil nature, except such suits the cognizance of which is either
expressly or implied barred. In other words, whenever the object of the proceedings is the
enforcement of civil rights, a civil court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit unless
the cognizance of the same is barred through a legislative instrument.
Section 19 of the Act states that where a suit is instituted for compensation on account of
wrong done, if such a wrong was committed within the local limits of the jurisdiction on one
court and the defendant resides in or carries on business, within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of another court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either
of the courts.
Section 20 of CPC provides that any suit, every plaintiff may file a suit in the court of law
within whose local limits the defendant against whom claim arises voluntarily resides or
carries on his/her business or is gainfully employed. The section provides that the suit may
also be filed in a court within whose local limits the whole or part of cause of action arose.
This is the basic principal of law that the suits are generally filed in court of law within whose
jurisdiction the whole or part of cause of action arises. Cause of action are the facts, in regard
to claim, relief that gives the plaintiff the right to bring a legal action.
The CPC further provides in case of more than one defendant, the suit can be instituted in any
court within whose jurisdiction any of the defendants resides or carries on business. A suit
can be filed only after obtaining leave of court or by way of other defendants acquiescing it.
The law also provides that, in case, the property is situated within the jurisdiction of more
than one court, then, the plaintiff may file the suit in either of the court within whose
jurisdiction any of the property is situated.
Disputes relating to property, breach of contracts, wrongs committed in money transactions,
etc. are categorized as civil wrongs and could be subject to a civil process. In such cases civil
suits should be instituted by the aggrieved persons. Civil wrongs are redressed before civil
courts by granting injunctions or by payment of damages or compensation to the aggrieved
party. As a matter of fact, every suit should be instituted before the court of lowest
jurisdiction. In the civil side the Munsiff’s Court is the court of lowest of the jurisdiction.
Hence, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court does not extend to all matters but
might be limited in certain cases. Thus, the current position regarding the jurisdiction of Civil

Page | 6
Courts is that they have inherent jurisdiction to hear into all civil matters unless it is expressly
or implied excluded by a statute.
2. Territorial Jurisdiction of Criminal Court
The Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) under section 177 provides that every offence
that is committed in India shall be ordinarily inquired and tried in the court within whose
local limits the offence is committed. The law contained under Cr. PC further provides that in
case where an offence consists of several acts that are done in different local areas then it
may be inquired and tried by a court that is having jurisdiction over any of these local areas.
Section 188 of the Cr. PC bestows jurisdiction on Indian Criminal Court in case where
offences are committed outside India by Indian citizen or by non-citizen but on ship or
aircraft registered in India. The section provides that where an offence is committed outside
India by an Indian citizen or non-citizen on a ship or aircraft registered in India, then the
accused may be dealt with in respect to such an offence as if the said offence has been
committed at any place within India at which he is found provided that previous sanction
from the central government is taken in regard to the same.
Under law, the Police may take cognizance of the offence in India but the trial would not
proceed without previous sanction of the central government as envisaged by the code under
Section 188 of Cr. PC.
Pecuniary jurisdiction
Pecuniary means ‘related to money’. Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to a bar on the court from
trying case when the value of the suit exceeds a given monetary limit. Thus, the Small Causes
Court is conferred jurisdiction in all cases where the amount or the value of the subject-
matter of the suit does not exceed Rs. 10,000. Likewise, consumer courts have different
pecuniary jurisdictions. A district forum can try cases of value up to Twenty lakh rupees
only.
At present the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Mumbai courts is as follows:
 Suits up to Rs. Ten Lakhs lie before district courts.
 The City Civil courts original pecuniary jurisdiction for suit property is of up to Rs.
One Crore.
 Suits over and above Rs. One Crore lie before High Courts.
It is very important to note that the amount of pecuniary jurisdiction is different for all High
Courts. This limit is decided by respective High Court Rules. In many states High court has
no pecuniary jurisdiction. All civil suits go before District Courts, and only appeal lies before
High Court

Page | 7
Jurisdiction of Courts in case of Writ Petition
Writ petition seeking enforcement of Fundamental rights can be made either to Supreme
Court of India which is situated at New Delhi or to the High Court of a respective state within
whose local limits either person or authority or government resides against whom the
aggrieved seeks the court to issue writ
Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India provides that High Court within whose jurisdiction
the person or authority or government is located would have jurisdiction to entertain the writ
petition directed against any one of them irrespective as to the fact as to where the cause of
action arose in that state provided that there was cause of action for filing writ petition.
Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India provides that High Court within whose jurisdiction
or local limits any part or whole cause of action arises shall have the jurisdiction to pass any
order or direction so as to enforce fundamental rights and any other right.
Hence, the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain writ petition against person/authority
that is situated within its local limits and also in case where whole or part of cause of action
arose in their respective local limits of the state where the High Court is situated.

Jurisdiction of Court in case of Arbitration Disputes

The Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides the law on arbitration in India.
The act under Section 2 (1) (e) defines Court for the purpose of the Act as the Principal Civil
Court in a district that is exercising original civil jurisdiction and is competent under law to
exercise jurisdiction on subject matter of arbitration. The Section states further that court
includes High Court of a state but does not include any court include any court inferior to
Principal Civil Court or court of small causes.
Thus, the law contained in Arbitration Act provides that any person aggrieved from
arbitration award or in case wants to challenge the award or any person who wishes to
enforce the award can present arbitration petition to either Principal Civil Court or High
Court in accordance to provisions of Civil Procedure Code that is providing for rules of
original civil jurisdiction. Hence, any party to arbitration agreement can file arbitration
petition challenging or seeking the enforcement of arbitration award in
1. Either at the place where defendant resides or gainfully carries on business
2. Where whole or part of cause of action arises.
The apex court has laid down the principle that has been followed by various High Courts in
its various reported decisions that venue is not necessarily seat of arbitration and is only
convenient place chosen by parties to arbitration for carrying out arbitration proceedings. The
venue of arbitration proceedings, thus, do not confer supervisory jurisdiction on the court in
respect of arbitration matters.

International and Municipal Jurisdiction

The fact that international organizations, courts and tribunals have been created raises the
difficult question of how to co-ordinate their activities with those of national courts. If the
two sets of bodies do not have concurrent jurisdiction but, as in the case of the International

Page | 8
Criminal Court (ICC), the relationship is expressly based on the principle of
complementarily, i.e. the international court is subsidiary or complementary to national
courts, the difficulty is avoided. But if the jurisdiction claimed is concurrent, or as in the case
of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the international
tribunal is to prevail over national courts, the problems are more difficult to resolve
politically.
The idea of universal jurisdiction is fundamental to the operation of global organizations such
as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which jointly assert the
benefit of maintaining legal entities with jurisdiction over a wide range of matters of
significance to states (the ICJ should not be confused with the ICC and this version of
"universal jurisdiction" is not the same as that enacted in the War Crimes Law (Belgium)
which is an assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction that will fail to gain implementation in
any other state under the standard provisions of public policy). Under Article 34 Statute of
the ICJ only states may be parties in cases before the Court and, under Article 36, the
jurisdiction comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided
for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. But, to invoke
the jurisdiction in any given case, all the parties have to accept the prospective judgment as
binding. This reduces the risk of wasting the Court's time.
Despite the safeguards built into the constitutions of most of these organizations, courts and
tribunals, the concept of universal jurisdiction is controversial among those states which
prefer unilateral to multilateral solutions through the use of executive or military authority,
sometimes described as realpolitik-based diplomacy.
Admiralty jurisdiction: Jurisdiction pertaining to mercantile and maritime law and cases. It
deals with cases of accidents in navigable waters or involve contracts related to commerce on
such waters. The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 was
passed by the Parliament and came into force on 1st April, 2018. The Act confers admiralty
jurisdiction on High Courts located in coastal states of India, thus, extending their jurisdiction
up to territorial waters. The Act extends the provisions of admiralty jurisdiction to every
vessel irrespective of place of domicile or residence of owner. It does not apply to naval
auxiliary, warships and vessels used for non-commercial purposes.
It empowers High Courts to exercise jurisdiction on maritime claims arising out of conditions
such as disputes regarding ownership of vessel, mortgage of vessel, construction, repair or
conversion of the vessel, disputes between co-owners of a vessel regarding employment or
earnings of a vessel, disputes arising out of the sale of a vessel, and environmental damage
caused by the vessel and such other disputes.

Page | 9
CONCLUSION
The advancement in technology has brought with it a new wave of advanced communication,
and transactions through virtual mediums have replaced face to face transactions. Today, e-
commerce plays a vital role in nearly every sphere of life- with simply just a click of the
mouse we can pay our electricity/telephone bills, do online shopping, transfer money to
persons in different parts of the globe, conduct business deals etc. An online transaction may
be explained as a way of conducting business by utilizing computer and telecommunication
technology to exchange data or conduct business. However, this boom in internet transactions
has brought a host of issues regarding jurisdiction of such transactions to the forefront. The
primary question that needs to be addressed is when a transaction takes place online, where is
the contract concluded? Justice S. Muralidhar has stated that the traditional approach to
jurisdiction invites a court to ask whether it has the territorial, pecuniary, or subject matter
jurisdiction to entertain the case brought before it. With the internet, the question of
‘territorial’ jurisdiction gets complicated largely on account of the fact that the internet is
borderless.
At present although e- transactions are at the helm, we must realize that the laws governing
these transactions are yet to emerge and develop. Although we have the IT Act in place, it is
not sufficient to deal with online transactions in India. It is a step in the right direction as it
lays down admissibility of electronic records, penalties for cyber-crimes etc. However, in the
case of online transactions it can be regarded as an enabling statute which must be read in
consonance with the Contract Act, 1872 in order to determine whether the online transaction
does indeed constitute a valid contract. There is a dire need for a specific legislation to be
enacted to determine issues involving jurisdiction for e-commerce disputes.
Jurisdiction is one of the debatable issues in the case of cybercrime due to the very universal
nature of the cybercrime. With the ever-growing arm of the cyber space the territorial concept
seems to vanish. New Methods dispute resolution should give way to the conventional
methods. Thus, the Information Technology Act, 2000 is silent on these issues. Though S. 75
provides for extra-territorial operations of this law, but they could be meaningful only when
backed with provisions recognizing orders and warrants for Information issued by competent
authorities outside their jurisdiction and measure for cooperation for exchange of material
and evidence of computers crimes between law enforcement agencies.

Page | 10
Bibliography
Online source:
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2268/Jurisdictional-Challenges-in-Online-
Transactions.html
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/508/Jurisdiction-Of-Civil-Court-Under-Civil-
Procedure-Code.html
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/what-is-jurisdiction/
 https://singhania.in/determining-jurisdiction-in-india/
 https://www.lawsenate.com/publications/articles/territorial-jurisdiction-of-courts-india.pdf

Article:
 Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts in India- Law Senate.

Page | 11