Law Messenger (LM)

Registration Login

Judicial Dictionary

Title	Jurisdiction
Details	The word jurisdiction is an expression which is used in a variety of senses and takes its co lour from its context. Jurisdiction means the power, right or authority to take cognizance decide any matter according to law; the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised; control. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be completely ousted even in the face of express ouster of jurisdiction in given statute. It has been repeatedly laid down by several judicial pronouncements that any provision made in a particular statute barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to call in question any order passed or action taken under the statute gives protection to orders which are made with jurisdiction, made within the framework of the statute and made bonafide. ….. [Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Commerce vs. Nizamuddin Haider (1985) 37 DLR 102] Question of jurisdiction of a court can be raised at any stage so long as that question is not dependant on determination of any issue of fact. ….. [Manager, Swiss Boring Over-Seas Corporation Ltd. vs. Shamsul Huq (1969) 21 DLR] See The Jurisdiction of Courts (Removal of Doubts) Order, 1969 (PO No. 3 of 1969). Advisory jurisdiction of the Appellate Division This Article provides that any question of law may be referred by the President for opinion of the Appellate Division if at any time it appears to him that such a question has arisen or is likely to arise which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court. The satisfaction of the President for making the Reference is not justifiable. Special Reference No. I of 1995, 15 BLD (AD) 194. Jurisdictional defence The Jurisdictional defect, either pecuniary or territorial or in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to act on a Decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction to try the suit is a nullity—Suits Valuation Act (Act VII of 1870). Abul Kashem Md. Lutfullah Vs. Safid Islam (Dumb) and others, 13 BLD (HCD) 648. Jurisdiction of the Court The question of jurisdiction of a Court is not a mere technicality, but it is fundamental in nature. Any decision arrived at by a Court having no jurisdiction to try the case, is a nullity. Kamaruddin and others Vs. Aftabuddin Ahmed and others, 14 BLD (HCD) 135. Jurisdiction of the Court The jurisdiction of a Court is not a mere technicality but it is fundamental in nature. Komoruddin and others Vs. Aftabuddin Ahmed and others, 14 BLD(HCD)134 Jurisdiction of writ court The High Court Division in its writ jurisdiction is not a Court for the recovery of money and has no jurisdiction to give a direction for payment of a particular amount of money to the writ-petitioner, unless the amount claimed is both an admitted amount as well as a statutory payment. The High Court Division exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Chairman, Bangladesh Water Development Board and another Vs. MIs. Shamsul Huq and Co. Ltd. and ors, 20 BLD (AD) 41 Ouster of Jurisdiction A close scrutiny of clause (1) and (5) of the Article discloses that the ouster of civil court’s jurisdiction under clause (5) though expressed is not without conditions. First, there has to be an existence of a liability of repayment of a loan. Secondly, there has to be default in re-payment of loan in terms of the agreement. Thirdly, the properties to be taken over and/or sold by the Sangstha must have to be a property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned by the industrial concern to secure its liability to the Sangstha. The power under clause (1) can be exercised if the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled and the ouster clause (5) comes into play when the Sangstha acts in consonance with clause (1) and not otherwise. In this regard the expression “under clause (1)” occurring in clause (5) and the expression “such taking over or transfer” in the said clause and clause (5)(a)(i)(ii)(iii) are particularly noticeable. In other words, if the conditions of clause (i) are not fulfilled the ouster clause (5) does not operate. In that case the purported action under clause (1) would be taken without jurisdiction. Such a case will not come within the mischief of clause (5). Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs. Rahman Textile Mills Ltd. and ors, 19 BLD (AD) 207. Vacation bench When during the vacation only a Single Judge is invested with all the jurisdictions that the High Court Division exercises, the learned Single Judge can even keep in abeyance during the period of the vacation an order passed by a regular Division Bench, once he is satisfied that it is both urgent and proper to interfere. But this unusual power must be exercised sparingly and with utmost caution, keeping in mind the usual limitation of a Single Judge—Rules of the High Court of Judicature for East Pakistan, Chapter III of Part I (Volume 1). Azizur Rahman alias Md. Azizur Rahman Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh and others, 17 BLD (AD) 203. The Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit for possession of an immovable property by evicting a licencee therefrom—Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (TX of 1887), Section -15(2) read with clause (4) of Article .1 of the Second Schedule. Aziz Ahmed Sarker and ors. Vs. Sree Sree Laxmi Narayan Jew Thakur, 17 BLD (AD) 174. The Admiralty Court has the jurisdiction under the provision of section 34 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 to suspend the proceedings in the principal cause until security has been given to answer the judgment in the cross cause—Admiralty Court Act, 1861, Section—34. G.D. ALESIO, LIVORNO, of M. V. MA URO DALESIO HAWAI SPLENDOUR and BLD (HCD) 324. Form of filing suit In view of the fact that both the High Court Division and the District Court enjoy co-extensive power to entertain and try suits on negotiable instruments through the summary procedure, the applicant cannot compel the High Court Division to entertain such suits—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(V of 1908), Order XXXVII Rule 1 and 2. Ansarul Hoque Vs. Agrani Bank, 18 BLD (HCD)138 Plaintiff No. 1 Shamsun Nahar Begum never appealed against the decree of the original court nor did she take any appeal therefrom She did not also prefer any revision. In such circumstances the learned Judges of the High Court Division had no jurisdiction to give her any further relief beyond what was granted by the first two courts below. Md. Hefzur Rahman Vs. Shamsun Nahar Begum and another, 19 BLD(AD) 27 The dispute raised by the two B.N.P. leaders by their letters to the Speaker could not have been settled through parliamentary proceeding simple because Parliament is not forum envisaged by the Constitution to address such a dispute. The constitution clearly defines the forum to be the Election Commission. Consequently Article 78 is not attracted and the Courts jurisdiction is not ousted—Constitution of Bangladesh, 1 972Article—78. Khondker Delwar Hossain Vs. The Speaker, Bangladesh Jatiyo Shangshad, 19 BLD (HCD) 45. The view of the High Court Division that the writ court is not competent to interfere with an administrative order is totally wrong. No action detrimental to the vested right of an individual or corporate body can be taken except in accordance with law—Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article—102 Brahamanbaria Pourashava Vs. Secretary Ministry of Land Reforms, Government of Bangladesh and others, 19 BLD (AD) 87. Jurisdiction is a creature of statute or law. If the statute does not expressly confer jurisdiction upon any Court, the order passed by the Court becomes coram-non-judice. Since the Constitution is silent the High Court Division have no jurisdiction to hear the review applications. Md. Omar Faruk Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 19 BLD (HCD) 70. The Rule does Snot empower the speaker to decide whether a member has vacated a seat or not—Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Rule 178(3) Md. Fazlur Rahman v Md. Abdul Hamid, Advocate & ors, 22 BLD (HCD) 631. As the Payment of Wages Act prescribes no procedure for the trial of offences punishable under the said Act, the proceedings will be carried on in manner provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chairman of the Labour Court has jurisdiction to try offences under the said Act, and the power to issue process is incidental and ancillary to the power of taking cognizance of an offence—Payment of Wages Act 1936 (IV of 1936), Sections —15, 20 and 21, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (V of 1898), Sections—5, 29, 36, 37, 68, 75 and 204. Hayder Meah v. Authority appointed under section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 and Chairman, 1St Labour Court, Dhaka, and ors, 22 BLD (HCD) 244. Jurisdiction Small Cause Court Jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court depends upon the subject matter of the suit and not upon the correctness of the plaintiffs contentions in respect of the subject matter. The frame of the suit itself is necessary to be taken into consideration before deciding whether the suit is triable by the S.C.C. Court or not. It is a settled question of law that Court of Small Cause is not entitled to consider the question of title but incidentally it can go into the question of title. In the instant case the learned S.C.C. Judge at length dealt with the question of title and ultimately decided the question of title finally in observing that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises although the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff and further that the defendant is his tenant. The suit being an S.C.C. Suit and the relief sought by the plaintiff is ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises claiming that the suit land belonged to them without filing a suit for declaration of title and under the garb of Small Cause Courts Act, they tried to evict the defendant, such a suit is not maintainable in law. Dr. Abdul Gani Vs. Mujibur Rahman & ors., 19 BLD (HCD) 480.

Title

Jurisdiction

Details

The word jurisdiction is an expression which is used in a variety of senses and takes its co lour from its context. Jurisdiction means the power, right or authority to take cognizance decide any matter according to law; the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised; control. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be completely ousted even in the face of express ouster of jurisdiction in given statute. It has been repeatedly laid down by several judicial pronouncements that any provision made in a particular statute barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to call in question any order passed or action taken under the statute gives protection to orders which are made with jurisdiction, made within the framework of the statute and made bonafide. ….. [Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Commerce vs. Nizamuddin Haider (1985) 37 DLR 102]
Question of jurisdiction of a court can be raised at any stage so long as that question is not dependant on determination of any issue of fact. ….. [Manager, Swiss Boring Over-Seas Corporation Ltd. vs. Shamsul Huq (1969) 21 DLR]
See The Jurisdiction of Courts (Removal of Doubts) Order, 1969 (PO No. 3 of 1969).

Advisory jurisdiction of the Appellate Division
This Article provides that any question of law may be referred by the President for opinion of the Appellate Division if at any time it appears to him that such a question has arisen or is likely to arise which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court. The satisfaction of the President for making the Reference is not justifiable. Special Reference No. I of 1995, 15 BLD (AD) 194.

Jurisdictional defence
The Jurisdictional defect, either pecuniary or territorial or in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to act on a Decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction to try the suit is a nullity—Suits Valuation Act (Act VII of 1870). Abul Kashem Md. Lutfullah Vs. Safid Islam (Dumb) and others, 13 BLD (HCD) 648.

Jurisdiction of the Court
The question of jurisdiction of a Court is not a mere technicality, but it is fundamental in nature.
Any decision arrived at by a Court having no jurisdiction to try the case, is a nullity. Kamaruddin and others Vs. Aftabuddin Ahmed and others, 14 BLD (HCD) 135.

Jurisdiction of the Court
The jurisdiction of a Court is not a mere technicality but it is fundamental in nature. Komoruddin and others Vs. Aftabuddin Ahmed and others, 14 BLD(HCD)134

Jurisdiction of writ court
The High Court Division in its writ jurisdiction is not a Court for the recovery of money and has no jurisdiction to give a direction for payment of a particular amount of money to the writ-petitioner, unless the amount claimed is both an admitted amount as well as a statutory payment. The High Court Division exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Chairman, Bangladesh Water Development Board and another Vs. MIs. Shamsul Huq and Co. Ltd. and ors, 20 BLD (AD) 41

Ouster of Jurisdiction
A close scrutiny of clause (1) and (5) of the Article discloses that the ouster of civil court’s jurisdiction under clause (5) though expressed is not without conditions. First, there has to be an existence of a liability of repayment of a loan. Secondly, there has to be default in re-payment of loan in terms of the agreement. Thirdly, the properties to be taken over and/or sold by the Sangstha must have to be a property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned by the industrial concern to secure its liability to the Sangstha. The power under clause (1) can be exercised if the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled and the ouster clause (5) comes into play when the Sangstha acts in consonance with clause (1) and not otherwise. In this regard the expression “under clause (1)” occurring in clause (5) and the expression “such taking over or transfer” in the said clause and clause (5)(a)(i)(ii)(iii) are particularly noticeable. In other words, if the conditions of clause (i) are not fulfilled the ouster clause (5) does not operate. In that case the purported action under clause (1) would be taken without jurisdiction. Such a case will not come within the mischief of clause (5). Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs. Rahman Textile Mills Ltd. and ors, 19 BLD (AD) 207.

Vacation bench
When during the vacation only a Single Judge is invested with all the jurisdictions that the High Court Division exercises, the learned Single Judge can even keep in abeyance during the period of the vacation an order passed by a regular Division Bench, once he is satisfied that it is both urgent and proper to interfere. But this unusual power must be exercised sparingly and with utmost caution, keeping in mind the usual limitation of a Single Judge—Rules of the High Court of Judicature for East Pakistan, Chapter III of Part I (Volume 1). Azizur Rahman alias Md. Azizur Rahman Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh and others, 17 BLD (AD) 203.

The Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit for possession of an immovable property by evicting a licencee therefrom—Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (TX of 1887), Section -15(2) read with clause (4) of Article .1 of the Second Schedule. Aziz Ahmed Sarker and ors. Vs. Sree Sree Laxmi Narayan Jew Thakur, 17 BLD (AD) 174.

The Admiralty Court has the jurisdiction under the provision of section 34 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 to suspend the proceedings in the principal cause until security has been given to answer the judgment in the cross cause—Admiralty Court Act, 1861, Section—34. G.D. ALESIO, LIVORNO, of M. V. MA URO DALESIO HAWAI SPLENDOUR and BLD (HCD) 324.

Form of filing suit
In view of the fact that both the High Court Division and the District Court enjoy co-extensive power to entertain and try suits on negotiable instruments through the summary procedure, the applicant cannot compel the High Court Division to entertain such suits—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(V of 1908), Order XXXVII Rule 1 and 2. Ansarul Hoque Vs. Agrani Bank, 18 BLD (HCD)138

Plaintiff No. 1 Shamsun Nahar Begum never appealed against the decree of the original court nor did she take any appeal therefrom She did not also prefer any revision. In such circumstances the learned Judges of the High Court Division had no jurisdiction to give her any further relief beyond what was granted by the first two courts below. Md. Hefzur Rahman Vs. Shamsun Nahar Begum and another, 19 BLD(AD) 27

The dispute raised by the two B.N.P. leaders by their letters to the Speaker could not have been settled through parliamentary proceeding simple because Parliament is not forum envisaged by the Constitution to address such a dispute. The constitution clearly defines the forum to be the Election Commission. Consequently Article 78 is not attracted and the Courts jurisdiction is not ousted—Constitution of Bangladesh, 1 972Article—78. Khondker Delwar Hossain Vs. The Speaker, Bangladesh Jatiyo Shangshad, 19 BLD (HCD) 45.

The view of the High Court Division that the writ court is not competent to interfere with an administrative order is totally wrong. No action detrimental to the vested right of an individual or corporate body can be taken except in accordance with law—Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article—102 Brahamanbaria Pourashava Vs. Secretary Ministry of Land Reforms, Government of Bangladesh and others, 19 BLD (AD) 87.

Jurisdiction is a creature of statute or law. If the statute does not expressly confer jurisdiction upon any Court, the order passed by the Court becomes coram-non-judice. Since the Constitution is silent the High Court Division have no jurisdiction to hear the review applications. Md. Omar Faruk Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 19 BLD (HCD) 70.

The Rule does Snot empower the speaker to decide whether a member has vacated a seat or not—Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Rule 178(3) Md. Fazlur Rahman v Md. Abdul Hamid, Advocate & ors, 22 BLD (HCD) 631.

As the Payment of Wages Act prescribes no procedure for the trial of offences punishable under the said Act, the proceedings will be carried on in manner provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Chairman of the Labour Court has jurisdiction to try offences under the said Act, and the power to issue process is incidental and ancillary to the power of taking cognizance of an offence—Payment of Wages Act 1936 (IV of 1936), Sections —15, 20 and 21, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (V of 1898), Sections—5, 29, 36, 37, 68, 75 and 204. Hayder Meah v. Authority appointed under section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 and Chairman, 1St Labour Court, Dhaka, and ors, 22 BLD (HCD) 244.

Jurisdiction Small Cause Court
Jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court depends upon the subject matter of the suit and not upon the correctness of the plaintiffs contentions in respect of the subject matter. The frame of the suit itself is necessary to be taken into consideration before deciding whether the suit is triable by the S.C.C. Court or not. It is a settled question of law that Court of Small Cause is not entitled to consider the question of title but incidentally it can go into the question of title. In the instant case the learned S.C.C. Judge at length dealt with the question of title and ultimately decided the question of title finally in observing that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises although the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff and further that the defendant is his tenant.
The suit being an S.C.C. Suit and the relief sought by the plaintiff is ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises claiming that the suit land belonged to them without filing a suit for declaration of title and under the garb of Small Cause Courts Act, they tried to evict the defendant, such a suit is not maintainable in law. Dr. Abdul Gani Vs. Mujibur Rahman & ors., 19 BLD (HCD) 480.