Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.42 seconds)
Chunilal Kothari And Ors. vs Sm. Gopi Devi Mimani And Ors. on 20 January, 1965 cites

Sidheswar Ganguly vs The State Of West Bengal on 24 October, 1957

In Sidheswar Canguly's case (supra) a Division Bench of this High Court had summarily dismissed the appeal. Another division bench called for all the records from the lower Court and dealt with the matter as if it was sitting on appeal against the order of the Division Bench. The supreme Court pointed out that one Division Bench could not sit in appeal against the decision of another, and that the granting of a certificate is in reality not granting "leave to appeals" in the larger sense. At that point of time, both Article 179 of the Limitation Act 1908, and Section 12 contained the words "leave to appeal". This expression really meant an application for a certificate and the learned Judge could never have meant that under the Limitation Act, 1908, the expression "leave to appeal" did not include an application for a certificate. That would have rendered Article 179 nugatory. Coming now to the Limitation Act of 1908, the question is as to why the use of the words leave to appear finds no place in Article 132, although the expression was used under Article 158 and Article 179 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Nothing appears from the statement of objects and reasons. It will appear, however, that Article 132 of the Limitation Act 1963 is wider than the old Article 179 which was only confined to appeals made under the Civil Procedure Code to His Majesty in Council. The present Article 132 relates to both civil and criminal appeals; Articles 132 and 133 mentioned therein relate to civil appeals and Article 134 relates to criminal appeals. It appears to me that the reason why the word "certificate" has been used in Article 132 of the Limitation Act rather than the words "leave to appeal" is that it collects at one place, instances both in civil and criminal appeals, where a certificate of the High Court is necessary for an appeal to the Supreme Court, and lays down the period of limitation. There was no intention of distinguishing between the word "certificate" and the expression "leave to appeal" which might have been used in other parts of the Act. It would certainly have been much better if the expression "leave to appeal" had been entirely dropped, even from Section 12. Perhaps this is the inevitable result of hasty legislation. If we construe Article 132 so very strictly, it would give rise to other difficulties. In Article 132, the expression used is--"certificate of fitness" in connection with appeals to the Supreme Court under Clause (1) of Article 132, Article 133 or Sub-clause (c) of Clause (1) of Article 131 of the Constitution. Article 132(1) does not speak of a certificate of fitness, but a certificate that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution Article 133(1)(a) and (b) relate to a certificate of valuation and not fitness. Only Article 133(1)(c) speaks about a certificate of fitness. Article 134(1)(c) also speaks about a certificate of fitness. Thus, it was inappropriate to speak about a "certificate of fitness" in respect of all these provisions. This shows that the wordings of Article 132 of the Limitation Act are not to be construed very strictly. The expression "certificate of fitness" used in Article 132 includes all the other kind of certificates mentioned in Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 55 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next