Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.23 seconds)
B.Hima Bindu, D/O V.V. Rama Rao, Aged ... vs Commissioner, Customs, Ce And Service ... on 10 March, 2016 cites

Mahendra Chunilal Mehta And Anr. vs Rajendra Chunilal Mehta And Anr. on 22 April, 2003

When a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference of opinion on it or where the Court has thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative views, then the question would be a substantial question of law. On the other hand if the question is practically covered by the decision of the highest Court, or if the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the only question is of applying those principles to the particular facts of the case, it would not be a substantial question of law. (Boodireddy Chandraiah22; Chunilal V. Mehta24; Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju ). Where it is found that the Tribunal has assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, the same can be adjudicated treating it as a substantial question of law. Any questions of law affecting the rights of parties would not by itself be a substantial question of law. An important or difficult question would, of course, be a substantial question but even if a question is not important or difficult, if there is room for reasonable doubt or difference of opinion on the question then it is would be a substantial question of law.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 68 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next