Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980

United Kingdom

Introductory Text

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980



An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the jurisdiction of, and the practice and procedure before, magistrates’ courts and the functions of justices’ clerks, and to matters connected therewith, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission.

[1st August 1980]

Part I Criminal Jurisdiction and Procedure

Part II Civil Jurisdiction and Procedure

Part III Satisfaction and Enforcement

Part IV Witnesses and Evidence

Part V Appeal and Case Stated

Part V Appeal and Case Stated

Part VII Miscellaneous and Supplementary

SCHEDULE 4APowers of authorised officers executing warrants

Continue Reading

Federal Court System vs State Court System USA


Court Structure

The Federal Court System The State Court System
Article III of the Constitution invests the judicial power of the United States in the federal court system. Article III, Section 1 specifically creates the U.S. Supreme Court and gives Congress the authority to create the lower federal courts. The Constitution and laws of each state establish the state courts. A court of last resort, often known as a Supreme Court, is usually the highest court. Some states also have an intermediate Court of Appeals. Below these appeals courts are the state trial courts. Some are referred to as Circuit or District Courts.
Congress has used this power to establish the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals, the 94 U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Court of Claims, and the U.S. Court of International Trade. U.S. Bankruptcy Courts handle bankruptcy cases. Magistrate Judges handle some District Court matters. States also usually have courts that handle specific legal matters, e.g., probate court (wills and estates); juvenile court; family court; etc.
Parties dissatisfied with a decision of a U.S. District Court, the U.S. Court of Claims, and/or the U.S. Court of International Trade may appeal to a U.S. Court of Appeals. Parties dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court may take their case to the intermediate Court of Appeals.
A party may ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, but the Supreme Court usually is under no obligation to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of federal constitutional questions. Parties have the option to ask the highest state court to hear the case.
Only certain cases are eligible for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.


Continue Reading

Super-Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Awatar Vs. Shiv Autar and Others[AIR 1980 SC 1575 : (1980) 4 SCC 81 : (1980)], has held as under:

After all, our District Courts are easier of access for litigants, and the High Courts, especially in large States like Uttar Pradesh, are ‘untouchable’ and ‘unapproachable’ for agrestic populations and even urban middle classes. Nor is there ground to distrust the District Judges. A hierarchy of courts built upon a heritage of disbelief in inferiors has an imperial flavour. If we suspect a Munsif and put a District Judge over him for everything he does, if we distrust a district Judge and vest the High Court with pervasive supervision, if we be skeptical about the High Courts and watch meticulously over all their orders, the System will break down as its morale will crack up. A psychic communicable disease of suspicion, skepticism and servility cannot make for the health of the judicial system. If the Supreme Court has a super-Supreme Court above it, it is doubtful whether many of its verdicts will survive, judging by the frequency with which it differs from itself.

The Definition of Court in Indian Evidence Act

The definition of Court in section 3, Evidence Act, is very wide indeed as it reads: “‘Court’ includes all Judges and Magistrate and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence”. The learned Judges there relied upon the definition of Court given in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act which, as has already been noted, is framed only for the purposes of the Act and is not to be extended where such an extension is not warranted. This definition does not help in the determination of the question whether the Commissioners appointed under the Act constitute a Court and the attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the position that finality and authoritativeness are the essential tests of a judicial pronouncement. We are of the opinion that the decision reached by the learned Judges of the Punjab High Court in that case was wrong and cannot help the respondent. Our attention was also drawn to another decision of the Nagpur High Court in M. V. Rajwade v. Dr. S. M. Hassan(1).

The question which came to be considered by the Court in that case was whether a commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 was a, Court within the meaning of section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, and, while considering the provisions of that Act, the learned Judges of the Nagpur High Court incidentally considered the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. They rightly observed that “the term ‘Court’ has not been defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. The Act, however, does contemplate a ‘Court of Justice’ which as defined in section 20, Indian Penal Code, 1860, denotes ‘a judge who is empowered by law to act judicially’. The least that is required of a Court is the capacity to deliver a “definitive judgment” and unless this power vests in a tribunal in any particular case, the mere fact that the procedure adopted by it is of a legal character and it has the power to administer an oath will not impart to it the status of a Court”, and came to the conclusion that the commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is not a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of ‘Courts Act, 1952.

The learned Judges were merely considering the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and were not concerned with the construction of the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 and whatever observations they made in regard to the provisions of the latter Act by way of comparing the same with the provisions of the former which they were there considering would not have the effect of putting on the provisions of the latter Act a construction which would be any avail to the respondent before us. The ratio which was adopted by the learned Judges was quite correct but it appears that they digressed into a consideration of the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 in order to emphasize the character and position of the commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 even though it was not strictly necessary for the purpose of arriving at their decision, though it must be mentioned that while discussing the nature and function of the commission they expressed themselves correctly as under:-

“The Commission governed by the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is appointed by the State Government “for the information of its own mind”, in order that it should not act, in exercise of its executive power, “otherwise than in accordance with the dictates of justice & equity” in ordering a departmental enquiry against its officers. It is, therefore, a fact finding body meant only to instruct the mind of the Government without producing any document of a judicial nature”[Brajnandan Sinha vs Jyoti Narain 1956 AIR 66, 1955 SCR (2) 955]

What is quasi-Judicial act ?

When a fact has to be proved before a Court or a tribunal and the Court or the tribunal calls upon the person who is relying upon a fact to prove it by best evidence it cannot be a defence as to the offence of forgery if that best evidence which, in this case was the invoices turn out to be forged documents. A person who produced those documents cannot be heard to say that he was required to prove his case by the best evidence and becaue he was so required he produced forged documents.Continue Reading

Jurisdiction of American Federal Court

American law

  1. Admiralty cases
  2. Cases involving securities and commodities regulation ,including takeovers of publicly held corporations
  3. Class action” cases
  4. Crimes under statutes enacted by congress
  5. Disputes between states
  6. Environmental regulation
  7. Federal constitutional issues
  8. Habeas corpus actions
  9. International trade law matters patent, copyright, and other intellectual property issues cases involving rights under treaties, foreign states, and foreign nationals
  10. Matters involving interstate and international commerce, including airline and railroad regulation
  11. Most cases involving federal laws or regulations (e.g., tax, social security, broadcasting, civil rights)
  12. State law disputes when “diversity of citizenship” exists bankruptcy matters
  13. Traffic violations and crimes occurring on certain federal property

Burdwan District Court

Burdwan Bar Association

Dress Code for Appearance by Advocates




(Rules under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Act)

Advocates appearing in the Supreme Court, High Courts, Subordinate Courts, Tribunals or Authorities shall wear the following as part of their dress which shall be sober and dignified: –

I. Advocates other than lady Advocates

(a) A black buttoned up coat, chapkan, achkan, black sherwani and white bands with Advocates’ Gowns, or

(b) A black open breast coat, white shirt, white collar, stiff or soft, and white bands with Advocates’ Gowns.

In either case long trousers (white, black striped or grey) or Dhoti.

II. Lady Advocates

(a) Black and full or half sleeve jacket or blouse, white collar stiff or soft, with white bands and Advocates’ Gowns.

White blouse, with or without collar, with white bands and with a black open breast coat.


(b) Sarees of long skirts (white or black of any mellow of subdued colour without any print or design) of Flare (white, black or black striped or grey) or Punjabi dress churidar-kurta or salawar-kurta with or without dupatta) white or black:

PROVIDED that the wearing of Advocates’ gowns shall be optional except when appearing in the Supreme Court or in a High Court:

PROVIDED FURTHER that in courts other than the Supreme Court, High Court, District Court, Sessions Court or City Civil Court a black tie may be worn instead of bands.


District Court usually deals with  following Types of Cases

  1. Criminal Misc. – Criminal Misc.
  2. Matrimonial Suit – Matrimonial Suit
  3. Criminal Appeal – Criminal Appeal
  4. Misc. Appeal – Misc. Appeal
  5. Criminal Revision – Criminal Revision
  6. Title Appeal – Title Appeal
  7. M A C C – M.A.C.C
  8. Mjc – Misc Judicial Case
  9. Act Viii Miscellaneous Case – Act VIII Miscellaneous Case
  10. Probate Suit – Probate Suit
  11. L.o.a. Suit – L.O.A. SUIT
  12. Mc – Misc Case
  13. Bail
  14. CA – Caveat Application
  15. Civil Appeal
  16. Civil Execution
  17. Civil Misc
  18. Civil Revision
  19. Complaint Case
  20. Criminal Case
  21. Crl. Execution – Criminal Execution
  22. Divorce On Mutual Consent – Matri Suit Divorce Mutual Cons
  23. Electricity Act
  24. Estate Acquisition Appeal
  25. Gr Case[Police case]
  26. Hindu Adaptation & Maint Act –  Maint Case
  27. Insolvancy Petition
  28. L A C – Land Acquisition Cases
  29. L A Ex. – Land Acquisition Execution
  30. L.O.A.
  31. M A C C Ex. – MACC Execution
  32. Misc Case (pre-emption)
  33. Misc. Criminal Revision
  34. Misc Crl Case – Misc Criminal Case
  35. Misc. Execution Case
  36. Money Appeal
  37. Money Execution
  38. Money Suit
  39. Mr  Maintenance – MR case for Maintenance
  40. M V Act – Motor Vehicle Case
  41. N D P S Case – NDPS Case
  42. NGR Case
  43. Other Appeal[Which is not listed here]
  44. Other Suit[Which is not listed here
  45. Probate Case
  46. S C C Ex. – Execution
  47. S C C Suit – SCC SUIT
  48. Sessions Case
  49. Sessions Trial
  50. Special Court Cases
  51. Succession Case
  52. Title Execution
  53. Title Suit
  54. Trust Suit  



  1. The Code Of Civil Procedure (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1988
  2. The Calcutta High Court Amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure Rules, 2006
  3. Case Flow Management Rules 2006 in the Subordinate Courts [West Bengal]


  1. Treasury_Rule_Full
  2. West Bengal service Rule Part -1
  3. West Bengal service Rule Part -2
  4. West Bengal Service Rule, Note, Vol-I
  5. Civil Rules and Orders
  6. Criminal Rules and Orders 

 Subordinate Court Criminal Rules- West Bengal

Rules For Advocates

An Advocate shall not accept a fee less than the fee taxable under the rules when the client is able to pay the same.

An Advocate shall not enter appearance in any case in which there is already a vakalatnama or memo of appearance filed by an Advocate engaged for a party except with his consent; in case such consent is not produced he shall apply to the Court stating reasons why the said consent should not be produced and he shall appear only after obtaining the permission of the Court.


কোর্ট ফি সংক্রান্ত বিষয়াদি [Court Fees]

১ টাকা মামলা [Money suit]-এডভেলরেম[Ad velorem]
২ ক্ষতিপুরণ সংক্রান্ত মামলা -এডভেলরেম
৩ বাজার মূল্য আছে এরকম স্থাবর সম্পত্তি সংক্রান্ত মামলা-এডভেলরেম
৪ বাজার মূল্য নেই এরকম স্থাবর সম্পত্তি সংক্রান্ত মামলা-এডভেলরেম
৫ দখল পুনরুদ্ধার সংক্রান্ত সুনির্দিষ্ট প্রতিকার আইনের 5 ধারার মামলা- এডভেলরেম
৬ নিষেধাজ্ঞার মামলা-এডভেলরেম
৭ মুসলিম আইনের অধীনে অগ্রক্রয়-এডভেলরেম
৮ দলিল রদ সংক্রান্ত-এডভেলরেম
৯ দলিল সংশোধন সংক্রান্ত-এডভেলরেম
১০ চুক্তিরদ সংক্রান্ত-এডভেলরেম
১১ ঘোষণা মামলা পরবর্তী প্রতিকার সহ-এডভেলরেম
১২ চুক্তি প্রবলের মামলা-এডভেলরেম
১৩ ইজমেন্ট অধিকার সংক্রান্ত-এডভেলরেম
১৪ বন্ধক খালাসের মামলা -এডভেলরেম
১৫ ফোরক্লোসার সংক্রান্ত মামলা-এডভেলরেম
১৬ Declatory suit -নির্ধারিত
১৭ ভরণপোষণ সংক্রান্ত-নির্ধারিত
১৮ দাম্পত্য অধিকার পুনরুদ্ধার সংক্রান্ত-নির্ধারিত
১৯ বিবাহ বিচ্ছেদ সংক্রান্ত মামলা-নির্ধারিত
২০ অভিভাবকত্ব  সংক্রান্ত মামলা-নির্ধারিত
২১ সাধারণ ঘোষনা  সংক্রান্ত মামলা-নির্ধারিত
২২ বাটোয়ারা ও পৃথক দখল সংক্রান্ত মামলা-এডভেলরাম
২৩ অগ্রক্রয় মামলা [Pre emption]-নির্ধারিত
২৪ সাধারন ঘোষণা সংক্রান্ত মামলা -নির্ধারিত
২৫ জমি, ভবন ও বাগান দখল পুনরুদ্ধার সংক্রান্ত মামলা-এডভেলরাম
২৬ সুনির্দিষ্ট প্রতিকার আইনের 6 ধারার দখল পুনরুদ্ধার সংক্রান্ত মামলা-এডভেলরাম
২৭ ভাড়া মামলা-এডভেলরাম
২৮ ডিক্রী রদের মামলা-এডভেলরাম
২৯ ঘোষণা ও নিষেধাজ্ঞা একত্রে-এডভেলরাম
৩০ আপিল ও রিভিশন -নির্ধারিত
৩১ ক্রোক রদের মামলা-এডভেলরাম
৩২ Vakalat – Petition – application – Fixed
৩৩ বেদখল অবস্থায় ঘোষণা মামলা –  এডভেলরাম
৩৪ দখলে থাকাবস্থায় ঘোষণা মামলা -নির্ধারিত



IN THE COURT OF THE LD…………………………     AT     ………..

Case No…………..

Case Title:                                                        vs                                      

Appearance on behalf of : 

Contact no of Client:                                                

Name of the Advocate:

 Address & Registration No:

Contact No:


NB: Due to emergency the abovenamed Client could not able to sign a formal Vakalat but instructed to appear on his/her behalf. Vakalat Shall be filed by the next hearing.


Courts and Tribunals in India

Online Law Library

ARROWAdmiralty Court

BULLET 2Civil Court

BULLET 2Commercial Court

BULLET 2Consumer court

BULLET 2Criminal Court

BULLET 2Executive Magistrate`s Court  

BULLET 2Family Court 

BULLET 2High Courts

BULLET 2Juvenile Court

BULLET 2Labour Court

BULLET 2Motor Accident Claim Court/Tribunal

BULLET 2Supreme Court in India

  1. Original Division
  2. Appellate Division
  3. Constitutional Division

BULLET 2Tribunals

BULLET 2Writ Court under Article 32 and 226 of Indian Constitution

View case type in District Court Level

Miscellaneous Acts and Rules 

Delhi Court Fees Act 2012 BULLET 2

Assam District and Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Services Rules, 1987

Civil Suit Rules (Assam)

Courts in the United States of America