SC: Consumers Cannot Bear Power Plant Depreciation Costs When No Electricity Was Supplied  ||  Supreme Court: Para-Teachers’ Regularisation Depends On Educational Standards Set By States  ||  Bombay High Court: State Cannot Withhold Aid to Child Homes While Supporting Ladki Bahin Yojana  ||  Delhi High Court: Husband Cannot Seek to Strike off Wife’s Defence over Unpaid Litigation Costs  ||  Calcutta HC: Bank Accounts Cannot Be Frozen Solely on Complaints Filed Via MHA Cybercrime Portal  ||  J&K&L HC: Unregistered Agreement to Sell Can be Considered For Assessing Possession at Interim Stage  ||  Raj HC: Cybercrime Cases Can't be Quashed Only on Compromise as They Impact Society at Large  ||  Gujarat High Court: Separate Compensation is Payable For Stillborn Child in Railway Accident Case  ||  Delhi HC: Hymen Rupture is Not Required to Prove Penetrative Sexual Assault under the POCSO Act  ||  Delhi HC: Organised Crime Groups Exploit Juveniles, Misuse Juvenile Justice Laws for Serious Crimes    

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