TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Appeal Value Criteria Clarified: Article 133(1) Requirement Emphasized</h1> <h3>Gundapuneedi Veeranna And Ors. Versus Gundapuneedi China Venkanna And.. .</h3> Gundapuneedi Veeranna And Ors. Versus Gundapuneedi China Venkanna And.. . - AIR 1953 Mad 878 Issues Involved:1. Right to appeal to the Supreme Court.2. Pecuniary requirements under Article 133 of the Constitution.3. Application of Article 135 of the Constitution.4. Vested rights of appeal.5. Jurisdiction of the Federal Court before the Constitution.6. Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950.Detailed Analysis:1. Right to Appeal to the Supreme Court:The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India against the decree and judgment of the High Court. The primary issue was whether the petitioners had a right to appeal to the Supreme Court given the pecuniary value of the subject matter. The petitioners argued that they had a right of appeal under Article 135 of the Constitution because the value was over Rs. 10,000, which would have allowed an appeal under Sections 109 and 110, Civil Procedure Code (CPC), before the Constitution.2. Pecuniary Requirements under Article 133 of the Constitution:The respondents contended that the petitioners were not entitled to leave because the case did not meet the pecuniary requirements of Article 133 of the Constitution, which mandates that the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute must be not less than Rs. 20,000. The petitioners, however, argued that since the value was above Rs. 10,000, they should be allowed to appeal under the provisions that existed before the Constitution.3. Application of Article 135 of the Constitution:The petitioners relied on Article 135, which states, 'Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the Supreme Court shall also have jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter to which the provisions of Article 133 or Article 134 do not apply if jurisdiction and powers in relation to that matter were exercisable by the Federal Court immediately before the commencement of this Constitution under any existing law.' They argued that their right to appeal to the Federal Court under the previous law should now be applicable to the Supreme Court.4. Vested Rights of Appeal:The petitioners invoked the principle of vested rights, asserting that the institution of a suit carried with it the implication that all appeals then in force are preserved to the parties until the end of the suit. They cited the principle laid down in 'Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving' and the Full Bench decision in 'Vasudeva Samiar, In re', which established that a party has a vested right of appeal as it existed at the time of the institution of the suit.5. Jurisdiction of the Federal Court before the Constitution:The judgment discussed the historical context of the appellate jurisdiction, noting that before the Constitution, appeals lay to the Privy Council and later to the Federal Court after the enactment of the Federal Court (Enlargement of Jurisdiction) Act, 1947. The Federal Court could entertain appeals where the value of the subject matter was more than Rs. 10,000. The Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949, further transferred the jurisdiction to the Federal Court, which ceased to exist with the coming into force of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court took its place.6. Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950:The Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, substituted Rs. 20,000 for Rs. 10,000 in Section 110 of the CPC to align with Article 133(1) of the Constitution. The judgment analyzed whether this adaptation affected the petitioners' right to appeal. It was concluded that Article 133(1) directly applied to judgments delivered after the commencement of the Constitution, meaning that the valuation requirement of Rs. 20,000 must be met.Conclusion:The judgment concluded that Article 133(1) of the Constitution applied to the case, requiring the subject matter's value to be not less than Rs. 20,000 for an appeal to the Supreme Court. The petitioners' reliance on Article 135 was rejected as Article 133(1) was applicable. The vested right of appeal to the Privy Council, which was abolished, could not be extended to the Supreme Court without meeting the new constitutional requirements. The petition was to be referred back to the learned Judges who initially heard the matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
