1981 (8) TMI 230 - SC - Companies Law

- scope, ambit and meaning of the word judgment - the power under s. 104 read with order 43 Rule 1 - Application of the Code to Revenue Courts

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope, ambit, and meaning of the word 'judgment' under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court.
2. Applicability of Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to internal appeals within the High Court.
3. Determination of whether the order of the Trial Judge refusing to appoint a receiver and grant an interim injunction is appealable.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope, Ambit, and Meaning of the Word 'Judgment' Under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court:

The Supreme Court examined the divergent interpretations of the term 'judgment' under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent across various High Courts. The term 'judgment' has been subject to conflicting judicial interpretations, with significant divergence in opinions.

- Calcutta High Court's Interpretation: Sir Richard Couch, C.J. in The Justice of the Peace for Calcutta v. The Oriental Gas Company, laid down a strict interpretation, defining 'judgment' as a decision affecting the merits of the question between the parties by determining some right or liability. This interpretation was later modified by Sir Asutosh Mookerjee, J., who expanded the scope to include decisions affecting any right involved in any application that puts an end to the suit or proceeding.

- Madras High Court's Interpretation: Sir Arnold White, C.J. in T.V. Tuljaram Row v. M.K.R.V. Alagappa Chettiar, adopted a broader view, stating that a judgment is not determined by its form but by its effect on the suit or proceeding. Orders ancillary to the suit, such as those for interim injunctions or appointment of receivers, were considered judgments.

- Rangoon High Court's Interpretation: Sir Page, C.J. in In Re Dayabhai Jiwandas & Ors v. A.M.M. Murugappa Chettiur, took a narrow view, equating 'judgment' with a decree passed by a civil court.

- Supreme Court's Position: The Supreme Court, after analyzing various judgments, emphasized the need for a consistent interpretation of 'judgment' across High Courts. It concluded that 'judgment' should include decisions that determine matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties, possessing the traits and trappings of finality.

2. Applicability of Section 104 Read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to Internal Appeals Within the High Court:

The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applies to internal appeals within the High Court.

- Arguments by Appellant (Mr. Sorabjee): It was contended that the provisions of Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 do not impose any bar on the trial held by the Trial Judge, and thus, the order impugned falls squarely under clauses (r) and (s) of Order 43 Rule 1, making it appealable to a larger Bench. It was also argued that even if the Letters Patent is a special law, the power under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 is not inconsistent with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

- Arguments by Respondent: The respondents argued that Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 could not apply to the original trial by the Trial Judge, which is governed by the Letters Patent alone. They also contended that the forum for an appeal contemplated by Section 104 is not applicable to internal appeals within the High Court.

- Supreme Court's Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 applies to proceedings before the Trial Judge of the High Court. The Court emphasized that there is no inconsistency between Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 and the Letters Patent. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure merely provide an additional remedy and do not interfere with or override the existing provisions of the Letters Patent.

3. Determination of Whether the Order of the Trial Judge Refusing to Appoint a Receiver and Grant an Interim Injunction is Appealable:

- Supreme Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court concluded that the order of the Trial Judge refusing to appoint a receiver and grant an interim injunction is appealable. The Court reasoned that such orders possess the quality of finality and affect valuable rights of the parties, thus falling within the definition of 'judgment' under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

- Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the appeal before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was maintainable and directed the High Court to decide the appeal on merits. The Court emphasized the need for a consistent interpretation of 'judgment' across High Courts to avoid judicial uncertainty and ensure uniformity in the application of the law.