Supreme Court: Foreign Judgment Unenforceable in India Without Fair Opportunity to Defend  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Decide Appeal Pending Before Statutory Authority Due to Delay  ||  Supreme Court: SDO Lacks Authority to Change Land Classification under UP Zamindari Abolition Act  ||  Supreme Court: Man Not Liable For Maintenance if DNA Test Proves He is Not the Child’s Father  ||  SC: Prison Must Not Dilute Rights of Disabled Inmates; Oversight Given to High-Powered Panel  ||  Delhi High Court: Judges Would Have to Recuse if Children as Central Govt Counsel is Treated as Bias  ||  Delhi HC: Fresh Tenders Allowed Despite Existing Contracts; Anticipatory Grievances Not Entertained  ||  Delhi High Court: Judges Cannot Respond Publicly; Criticism Must Be Responsible and Evidence-Based  ||  J&K&L High Court: IO Not Bound By FIR; Can Modify Offences in Final Chargesheet U/S 173 CrPC  ||  Supreme Court: Brief Service Breaks Do Not Bar Ad Hoc Employees From Regularisation    

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