NCLAT: Consideration of Debt Restructuring by Lenders Doesn’t Bar Member from Initiating Proceedings  ||  Delhi High Court: In Matters of Medical Evaluation, Courts Should Exercise Restraint  ||  Delhi HC: Any Person in India Has Right to Legally Import Goods from Abroad and Sell the Same  ||  Delhi HC: Waiver to Section 12(5) of Arbitration Act to be Given Once Tribunal is Constituted  ||  Supreme Court Has Asked States to Regularise Existing Court Managers  ||  SC: Union & States to Create Special POSCO Courts on Top Priority  ||  SC Upholds Authority of CERC to Award Compensation for Delays  ||  SC: Arbitral Tribunal Has Discretion to Include in Sum Awarded, Interest at Rate as it Deems Reasonab  ||  SC: Cannot Use Article 142 to Frame Guidelines on Judicial Recusal  ||  SC: Satisfaction Recorder in One EP Won’t Affect Subsequent EPs for Future Breaches    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved