LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD vs THE STATE OF MADRAS on 19 February, 1981

Cites 2 provisionsCites 2 judgmentsCited by 0
Official PDFBench Anand Dev Koshal, Ram Briksha Misra
PETITIONER:
EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF MADRAS
DATE OF JUDGMENT19/02/1981
BENCH:
KOSHAL, A.D.
BENCH:
KOSHAL, A.D.
MISRA, R.B. (J)
CITATION:
1981 AIR 968 1981 SCR (2) 948
1981 SCC (2) 479 1981 SCALE (1)390
ACT:
Constitution of India-Article 133(1)(a) and (c) (before
amendment)-Certificate issued, not in conformity with law-
Supreme Court, if could revoke the certificate-Special
leave, if could be granted after revoking the certificate.
HEADNOTE:
1. If the certificate granted by the Court under sub-
clauses (a) and (c) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the
Constitution, as it then stood, did not conform to legal
requirements in as much as it did not specify the
substantial question of law which, according to High Court,
required determination and no reasons in respect of issuance
of the certificate appeared therein, the certificate could
be revoked. [948 H]
Sohan Lal Naraindas v. Laxmidas Raghunath Gadit [1971]
1 S.C.C. 276; Sardar Bahadur S. Indra Singh Trust v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal [1972] 1 S.C.R. 392
followed.
2. In such a situation if it could be made out that a

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1970.

From the Judgment and Decree dated 25-3-1969 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 1195 of 1970.

U.R. Lalit, P.H. Parekh and Miss Manik Tarkunde for the Appellant.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KOSHAL J. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Rangam to the effect that the certificate granted by the court under sub-clauses (a) and (c) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution of India, as it then stood, does not conform to legal requirements in as much as-

(a) it does not specify the substantial question

of law which the High Court states require

determination; and

(b) no reasons in support of the issuance of the

certificate appear therein.

The preliminary objection is well founded in view of the decisions of this Court in Sohan Lal Naraindas v. Laxmidas Raghunath Gadit and in Sardar Bahadur S. Indra Singh Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal.

Faced with this situation Mr. Lalit wanted us to treat the appeal as one by special leave and prayed that such leave be granted now after condoning the delay. That would have been certainly a reasonable course to follow if it was made out that a substantial question of law really requires determination. We have gone through the impugned judgment and find that no such question is involved at all. We, therefore, refuse special leave, revoke the certificate granted by the High Court and dismiss the appeal but with no order as to costs. P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.