2000 (8) TMI 1130 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
2. Whether the word "adjourn" in Section 3 means "refer."
3. Necessity of stating reasons in the order of adjournment.
4. Whether the order of reference is appealable under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
5. Conditions under which a Division Bench can refer a matter to a Full Bench under Section 4 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958:
The judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 3, which allows a single Judge to adjourn a matter for being heard by a Division Bench. The court examined the legislative intent and the language used in the section. It was noted that the word "adjourn" should be construed narrowly to mean "refer" to a Division Bench. This interpretation aligns with the judicial order's nature, requiring it to be in writing and signed by the Judge.

2. Whether the word "adjourn" in Section 3 means "refer":
The court concluded that the word "adjourn" in Section 3 must be construed narrowly, meaning "refer" to a Division Bench for final hearing and decision. This interpretation was supported by the legislative history and the departure from the wording in the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act, which used "refer."

3. Necessity of stating reasons in the order of adjournment:
The court emphasized that an order of adjournment under Section 3 is a judicial order and must contain brief reasons. This requirement ensures transparency and allows the litigant to understand why the matter was referred to a Division Bench. The necessity of stating reasons is rooted in the principle that judicial orders must be informed by reason.

4. Whether the order of reference is appealable under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958:
The court held that an order of reference by a single Judge to a Division Bench is not appealable under Section 5 of the Act. Such an order is procedural and does not affect the parties' rights. Therefore, it cannot be challenged in an appeal, as it does not determine any rights or liabilities.

5. Conditions under which a Division Bench can refer a matter to a Full Bench under Section 4 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958:
The court clarified that a Division Bench can refer a matter to a Full Bench only if there is a conflict of views expressed by two Division Benches of the Court, and there is no subsequent decision of the Apex Court resolving the conflict. The mere agreement of both Judges in the Division Bench that the decision involves a question of law is insufficient for such a reference.

Conclusion:
The court answered the questions referred to the Special Bench, emphasizing the need for judicial orders to be reasoned and in writing. The interpretation of "adjourn" as "refer" was upheld, and the non-appealability of such orders was confirmed. The judgment also highlighted the conditions under which a Division Bench can refer matters to a Full Bench, ensuring consistency and clarity in judicial proceedings.