9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (10) TMI 932 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the compromise in the case was obtained by perpetrating fraud on the court, the High Court was justified in exercising its powers under Section 103 C.P.C. to go into the question? Held that -. The High Court was justified in re-appreciating the facts without formulating a substantial question of law in view of the provisions of Section 103 CPC. There was no occasion for the High Court to decide the second appeal without framing the substantial question of law and it was not a case which could warrant consideration under Section 103 C.P.C. Thus, the judgment and decree impugned are liable to be set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Second Appeal: Sections 100 & 103 C.P.C. 2. Natural Justice 3. Validity of Revised Electricity Bill Detailed Analysis: Second Appeal: Sections 100 & 103 C.P.C. The provisions of Sections 100 and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) were central to the case. Section 100 CPC stipulates that a second appeal to the High Court is permissible only if it involves a substantial question of law. Section 103 CPC allows the High Court to determine any issue necessary for the disposal of the appeal if the evidence on record is sufficient. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appeal is statutory and must comply with the conditions set forth in the law. The High Court must formulate a substantial question of law before deciding a second appeal. The existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court in this case failed to frame a substantial question of law and relied on Section 103 CPC without justifying its use. The Supreme Court found this approach erroneous, as the High Court did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 100 CPC. Natural Justice The principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), were violated in this case. The appellant was not given a show cause notice or an opportunity to be heard before the revised bill was issued. The Supreme Court noted that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a vacuum and must consider the facts and circumstances of each case. The demand notice issued by the Board did not provide any prior intimation of checking, nor was any responsible officer of the appellant present during the inspection. This lack of procedural fairness rendered the revised bill void. The Supreme Court reiterated that non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudicial and does not require proof of specific prejudice. Validity of Revised Electricity Bill The revised electricity bill issued by the Board was based on the assertion that the meter was initially recording only one-third of the actual consumption due to a reversed Current Trap Potent (CT) connection. The trial court and the first appellate court found that the appellant had not tampered with the meter and the defect was due to the Board's negligence. They concluded that the revised bill was unjustified and declared it null and void. The High Court, however, reversed these findings without framing a substantial question of law, relying heavily on a chart showing meter readings before and after the correction. The Supreme Court found this reliance misplaced, as the readings were inconsistent and did not support the Board's claim. The absence of a check meter further weakened the Board's position. The Supreme Court restored the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court, which had correctly appreciated the evidence and the relevant facts. The revised bill was deemed invalid due to procedural irregularities and the lack of a substantial question of law. Conclusion The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and decree, restoring the decisions of the trial court and the first appellate court. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and principles of natural justice in legal proceedings.
|
