Delhi HC: Saying “Maro Sale Ko” During a Fight Alone Does Not by Itself Establish Intent to Kill  ||  Delhi HC Ordered Removal of Fake News About Judges’ London Badminton Event, Restrained its Sharing  ||  Bombay HC: Calling Police over Routine Transfers or External Complaints is Misconduct  ||  Delhi HC Upheld EC’s Decision Banning Political Ads in the Delhi Metro During Model Code of Conduct  ||  Delhi HC: In the Telegram Case Entire Social Media Platforms Can Be Blocked U/S 69A of the IT Act  ||  Supreme Court: Pedestrians' Right to Footpaths Cannot be Overridden by Motorists  ||  Supreme Court: Financier Cannot Seek Insurance For a Vehicle Surrendered by its Owner  ||  Madhya Pradesh High Court: Victims Must be Given a Hearing Even Before Closure Report Rejection  ||  Delhi HC: Payment of ‘Pagri’ Does Not Render Tenancy Non-Terminable, Allowing Eviction  ||  Ker HC Examined Whether Electro-Homeopathy Can be Practised Without Registration under Medical Laws    

Chairman, Budge Budge Municipality v. Mongru Mia and Ors. - (High Court of Calcutta) (10 Sep 1952)

Warranting appeal from decision of a Single Judge

MANU/WB/0165/1953

Civil

Whether a High Court can sit in appeal against an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a Single Judge of the same court has been one issue that has refused to lie. In the instant case the Court had vociferously defended its domain, “if the Letters Patent of the Court makes the judgments of such Judge given on such applications appealable… then Article 226… shall not be exceeded”. With the Court unable to contain itself, perhaps the rationale was best advanced as “Appellate Division of the High Court is also the High Court”.

It delved into Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to determine the remit of its appeal jurisdiction. Rather than accept that only judgments pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915-19 could be appealed, it repelled instead that the Court could hear appeals from Single Judge benches even in subjects not expressly mentioned in the Letters Patent. Before hastily adding that limitation on appeals from original jurisdiction extended to those emerged from other judicial opinion.

Relevant : In Re Prahlad Krishna' MANU/MH/0040/1951 James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. vs. The National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. MANU/MH/0063/1951 Section 108 Government of India Act, 1915-19 Act

Tags : SINGLE JUDGE   APPEAL   MAINTAINABILITY   LETTERS PATENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved