Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2004 (10) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (10) TMI 605 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal against an order passed by a single Judge of the High Court sitting in Appellate Jurisdiction.
2. The interplay between Section 104(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
3. Historical and judicial perspectives on the finality of orders under Section 104 CPC and their impact on Letters Patent Appeals.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal:
The core issue was whether a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a single Judge of the High Court sitting in Appellate Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined the historical context and judicial interpretations of Section 104 CPC and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The Court noted that the High Court of Madras had ruled that such an appeal was not maintainable based on Section 104(2) CPC.

2. Interplay between Section 104(2) CPC and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent:
The Supreme Court analyzed whether Section 104(2) CPC bars a Letters Patent Appeal. It was highlighted that Section 104(1) CPC saves appeals under "any law for the time being in force," which includes Letters Patent Appeals. The Court emphasized that Section 104(2) cannot override the saving clause in Section 104(1). The Court reiterated that a Letters Patent Appeal is a special jurisdiction conferred by the Letters Patent, which cannot be excluded by implication but only by express provision.

3. Historical and Judicial Perspectives:
The Court reviewed the historical evolution of Section 104 CPC and its predecessors, Section 588 of the Civil Procedure Codes of 1877 and 1882. It was noted that the Privy Council and various High Courts had differing views on whether Section 588 barred Letters Patent Appeals. The legislature intervened by introducing Section 4 and Section 104 CPC in 1908, which explicitly saved appeals under special laws, including the Letters Patent.

The Court referred to several landmark judgments, including:
- Hurrish Chunder Chowdhry vs. Kali Sundari Debia: The Privy Council held that Section 588 did not apply to appeals from one Judge of the High Court to the Full Court.
- National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs. James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd.: The Supreme Court held that an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was maintainable against a judgment of a single Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act.
- Union of India vs. Mohindra Supply Company: The Supreme Court held that Section 104(1) CPC saved the right to appeal under the Letters Patent.
- Gulab Bai vs. Puniya: The Constitution Bench held that the words "under any law for the time being in force" in Section 104(1) CPC saved Letters Patent Appeals.

The Court concluded that the decisions in Resham Singh Pyara Singh vs. Abdul Sattar and New Kenilworth Hotel (P) Ltd. vs. Orissa State Financial Corporation were incorrect and overruled them. The Court reaffirmed that a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable unless expressly barred by a specific provision in the statute.

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and remitted the matters back to the High Court for a decision on merits.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates