Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.21 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hanskumar Kishanchand vs The Union Of India(And Connected ... on 22 August, 1958
We may now turn our attention to the decision of this Court
in Hanskumar Kishanchand v. Union of India(3) on which, as
mentioned earlier, Shri Goyal placed a great deal of
reliance in support of his preliminary objection. The
principal question that arose for decision in that case was
whether the decision rendered by the High Court under S.
19(1)(f) was a judgment, decree or final order within the
meaning of those words found in S. 109 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The Court accepted the contention of the
Solicitor General appearing for the respondent, the Union of
India, that it was not a judgment, decree or final order,
and that being so, no certificate under ss. 109 and II 0 of
the Code of Civil Procedure to appeal to the Federal Court
could have been given by the High Court. In that case this
Court was not called upon to consider the scope of Art. 136.
Therefore, it did not go into the question whether the
decision appealed against could be considered as a
determination falling within the scope of Art. 136.
The Defence of India Act, 1962
Article 133 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs Mahaboob Sir Frazvant Sri Raja ... on 28 January, 1926
The decisions relied on by this Court merely lay down the
proposition that the decision given by the High Court in an
appeal against an award is neither a decree, judgment or
final order. None of the aforementioned decisions lays down
the 'proposition that the High Court while exercising its
appellate power did not function as a 'court'. The
observation in this Court's judgment that the provision for
appeal to the High Court under s. 19(1)(f) can only be
construed as reference to it as an authority designated and
not as a court, does not receive any support from those
decisions. Nor do we find any sound basis for that
conclusion. With respect to the learned Judges who decided
that case, we are unable to agree with that conclusion. In
our judgment, while acting under s. 19(1)(f), the High Court
functions as a 'court' and not as a designated person. Our
conclusion in this regard receives support from the decision
of the Judicial Committee in Secretary of State for India in
Council v. Chelikani Rama Rao(1) and others referred to
earlier.
The Special Officer Salsette Building ... vs Dossabhai Bezonji Motivalla on 4 October, 1912
the Court in its normal civil jurisdiction, or
dehors it as a persona designata. Where the
dispute is referred to the Court for
determination by way of arbitration as in
Rangoon Botatoung Company v. Collector,
Rangoon (39 I.A 197), or where it comes by way
of appeal against what is statedly an award as
in The Special Officer Salsette Building Sites
v. Dossabhai Bezonji (ILR 37 Bom.
National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd vs James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd.(J.& P. Coats ... on 7 May, 1953
The fact that the arbitrator appointed under s. 19(1)(b) is
either a designated person or a tribunal-as to whether he is
a person designated or a tribunal we express no
opinion--does not in any way bear on the question whether
the 'High Court' referred to under s. 19(1)(f) is a court or
not. Our statutes are full of instances where appeals or
revisions to courts are provided as against the decisions of
designated persons and tribunals. See for example,
Advocates Act, Trade Marks Act. Reference in this
connection may usefully be made to the decisions in National
(1) [1953] S.C.R. 1028, (2) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 366,
377
Sewing Thread Co., Ltd. v. James Chadwick and Bros., Ltd.(1)
and the Secretary of State for India in Council v. Chelikani
Rama Rao and others(2)
Prima facie it appears incongruous to hold that the High
Court is not a 'court'. The High Court of a State is at the
apex of the State's judicial system. It is a court of
record. It is difficult to think of a High Court as
anything other than a 'court'. We are unaware of any
judicial power having been entrusted to the High Court
except as a 'court'. Whenever it decides or determines any
dispute that comes before it, it invariably does so as a
'court'. That apart, when s. 19(1)(f) specifically says
that an appeal against the order of an arbitrator lies to
the High Court, we see no justification to think that the
legislature said something which it did not mean.