P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved