Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1796 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation of statute - water dispute - whether the language employed Under Article 262 intends to oust the jurisdiction of this Court on all scores and counts? - fundamental rights of the citizens. HELD THAT:- Having stated about the extent of jurisdiction of this Court Under Article 136 of the Constitution and upon taking note of the precedents pertaining to sphere of Article 262 read with Section 11 of the 1956 Act, we may state that what is excluded under the Constitution is the dispute or complaint. The term ‘dispute’, as has been held in Gujarat State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P.R. Mankad and Ors. [1979 (1) TMI 245 - SUPREME COURT], means a controversy having both positive and negative aspects. In Canara Bank and Ors. v. National Thermal Power Corporation and Anr. [2000 (12) TMI 839 - SUPREME COURT], the term ‘dispute’ has been interpreted to mean that there is a postulation of an assertion of a claim by one party and denial by the other. The term ‘dispute’ may be given a broad meaning or a narrow meaning and the 1956 Act gives it a broad meaning, as has been held by this Court. When the principles of statutory interpretation is applied to understand the legislative intendment of Section 6(2) it is clear as crystal that the Parliament did not intend to create any kind of embargo on the jurisdiction of this Court. The said provision was inserted to give the binding effect to the award passed by the tribunal. The fiction has been created for that limited purpose. Section 11 of the 1956 Act, as stated earlier, bars the jurisdiction of the courts and needless to say, that is in consonance with the language employed in Article 262 of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had not conferred the power on this Court to entertain an original suit or complaint and that is luminescent from the language employed in Article 131 of the Constitution and from the series of pronouncements of this Court. Be it clearly stated that Section 6 cannot be interpreted in an absolute mechanical manner and the words “same force as on order or decision” cannot be treated as a decree for the purpose for excluding the jurisdiction of this Court. The Civil Appeals are maintainable - Let the Appeals be listed at 3 p.m. on 15.12.2016 for further orders.
|