Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent not maintainable due to finality clause in Delhi Rent Control Act.

        SOUTH ASIA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus SB. SARUP SINGH

        SOUTH ASIA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus SB. SARUP SINGH - 1965 AIR 1442, 1965 (2) SCR 755 Issues Involved:
        1. Whether an appeal lies under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent for the High Court of Lahore to a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court against a judgment passed by a single Judge in a second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
        2. Interpretation of Sections 39 and 43 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
        3. Applicability and scope of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
        4. Finality of the judgment under Section 43 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent:
        The core issue was whether an appeal lies under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent for the High Court of Lahore to a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court against a judgment passed by a single Judge in a second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The appellant argued that Section 39 of the Act confers a right of appeal from an order of the Rent Control Tribunal to the High Court, and once the appeal reaches the High Court, it must exercise its jurisdiction in the same manner as it exercises other appellate jurisdictions. Therefore, the judgment of a single Judge in such an appeal should be subject to an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

        2. Interpretation of Sections 39 and 43 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:
        Section 39(1) of the Act provides a right of appeal to the High Court from an order made by the Tribunal, subject to the condition that the appeal involves a substantial question of law. Section 43 states that every order made by the Controller or an order passed on appeal under the Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application, or execution proceeding. The respondents argued that the Act confers a special jurisdiction on the High Court, and the judgment in such an appeal does not attract Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. They further contended that Section 43 makes the judgment of a single Judge in an appeal under Section 39 final, thereby modifying Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

        3. Applicability and Scope of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent:
        Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, as amended in 1928, provides for an appeal to the High Court from the judgment of a single Judge, except in certain specified cases. The Court noted that the first part of Clause 10 is general and allows for an appeal from the judgment of a single Judge of the High Court, whether the judgment is made in the exercise of appellate, revisional, or criminal jurisdiction. The Court observed that the clause does not distinguish between appellate jurisdiction over Courts and Tribunals, and if a law made by a competent legislative authority declares a case to be subject to appeal to the High Court, Clause 10 is attracted. The Court also referred to the decision in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd., which held that when a statute directs that an appeal shall lie to a Court already established, the appeal must be regulated by the practice and procedure of that Court.

        4. Finality of the Judgment under Section 43 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:
        The Court held that the expression 'final' in Section 43 of the Act connotes that an order passed on appeal under the Act is conclusive and no further appeal lies against it. The finality imposed by Section 43 is not limited to collateral proceedings but also bars further appeals. The Court emphasized that the Act is a self-contained code providing an exhaustive mechanism for disposing of appeals arising under it. The opening words of Section 43, 'save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,' underscore the intention of the Legislature to preclude further appeals beyond what is specified in the Act.

        Conclusion:
        The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent was not maintainable as the finality clause in Section 43 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, precluded any further appeal beyond the single Judge's decision. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found