Dhulabhai and Others vs The State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1969 SC 68]
Principles governing the ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court
(1)
Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the
Civil Courts jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate
remedy to do what the Civil Courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision,
however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular
Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in
conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
(2)
Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination
of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of
the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the
jurisdiction of the civil court.
Where there is no
express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the
particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of
the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the
statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the
determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions
about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so
constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in Civil
Courts are prescribed by the said statute or not.
(3)
Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be
brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot
go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the
Tribunals.
(4)
When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality
of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may
include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time
prescribed by the Limitation Act but
it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit.
(5)
Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in
excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected a suit lies.
(6) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry.
(7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply.