Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. The above decision does not, in our opinion run counter to the conclusion arrived at by us. Firstly the judicial system of a State is that which is established by law for the time being in force. The Civil Courts are established by the Civil Courts Act. The Criminal Courts are established by the Criminal Procedure Code, or such other Act in that behalf, as the case may be; but, there is no reason to presume that the judicial system comes to an end with that. A court again is, in essence, a tribunal. The nomenclature is not of much consequence. We have to look to the substance of the matter. One must look to the function, and not to the functionary. The Courts established by the Hyderabad Tenancy Act are as much part of the judicial system of the State as the Civil or Criminal Courts. Secondly, the authorities established under the Act do satisfy the tests evolve by the Court in the said case, viz., that, it must have the power to pronounce a binding and authoritative judgment. The said authorities also meet the criteria contained in the passage from Halsbury's Laws of England, quoted with approval by the Supreme Court. It should also be noted further that the decision of the Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank, , is a subsequent decision which , in our opinion, is a more definitive expression of law on the subject. We must however, make it clear that our decision is confined only to the tribunals under the Hyderabad Tenancy Act and not to the tribunals created by the other special enactments. We have considered only the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act and have arrived at the above conclusion in the light of the aforementioned tests enunciated by the Supreme Court.