2004 (10) TMI 605 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Rules Letters Patent Appeal Maintainable Against Single Judge Order in Appellate Jurisdiction if Not Statutorily Barred.

The SC determined that a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against an order by a single Judge of the HC in appellate jurisdiction, unless expressly ... Applicability of Section 104 CPC to Letters Patent Appeals - Interpretation of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent - Amendment or alteration of Letters Patent - powers conferred on the Trial Judge by Clause 15 of the Letters Patent - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, Clause 44 permits amendment or alteration of Letters Patent but then which legislation is not subject to amendment or alteration. CPC is also subject to amendments and alterations. In fact it has been amended on a number of occasions. The only unalterable provisions are the basic structure of our Constitution. Merely because there is a provision for amendment does not mean that, in the absence of an amendment or a contrary provision, the Letters Patent is to be ignored. To submit that a Letters Patent is a subordinate piece of legislation is to not understand the true nature of a Letters Patent. As has been held in Vinita Khanolkar’s case (supra) and Sharda Devi’s case a Letters Patent is the Charter of the High Court. As held in Shah Babulal Khimji’s case (supra) a Letters Patent is the specific law under which a High Court derives its powers. It is not any subordinate piece of legislation. As set out in aforementioned two cases a Letters Patent cannot be excluded by implication. Further it is settled law that between a special law and a general law the special law will always prevail. A Letters Patent is a special law for the concerned High Court. Civil Procedure Code is a general law applicable to all Courts. It is well settled law, that in the event of a conflict between a special law and a general law, the special law must always prevail. We see no conflict between Letters Patent and Section 104 but if there was any conflict between a Letters Patent and the Civil Procedure Code then the provisions of Letters Patent would always prevail unless there was a specific exclusion. This is also clear from Section 4 Civil Procedure Code which provides that nothing in the Code shall limit or affect any special law. As set out in Section 4 C.P.C. only a specific provision to the contrary can exclude the special law. The specific provision would be a provision like Section 100A. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the reasoning of this Court in South Asia Industries (P) Ltd.[1965 (1) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT]. The same reasoning would apply in respect of the submission that if it is held that Section 104(2) did not bar a Letters Patent Appeal an anomalous situation would arise in as much as if the matter were to come to the High Court a further Appeal would be permitted but if it went to the District Court a further Appeal would not lie. An Appeal is a creature of a Statute. If a Statute permits an Appeal, it will lie. If a Statute does not permit an Appeal, it will not lie. Thus for example in cases under the Land Acquisition Act, Guardian and Wards Act and the Succession Act a further Appeal is permitted whilst under the Arbitration Act a further Appeal is barred. Thus different statutes have differing provisions in respect of Appeals. There is nothing anomalous in that. A District Court cannot be compared to a High Court which has special powers by virtue of Letters Patent. The District Court does not get a right to entertain a further Appeal as it does not have 'any law for the time being in force' which permits such an Appeal. In any event we find no provisions which permit a larger Bench of the District Court to sit in Appeal against an order passed by a smaller Bench of that Court. Yet in the High Court even, under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C., a larger Bench can sit in Appeal against an order of a Single Judge. Section 104 itself contemplates different rights of Appeals. Appeals saved by Section 104(1) can be filed. Those not saved will be barred by Section 104(2). We see nothing anomalous in such a situation. Consequently the plea of discrimination urged before us must be rejected. Thus, the Order of the High Court cannot be sustained. It is hereby set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. The matters are remitted back to the High Court for decision on merits. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal against an order passed by a single Judge of the High Court sitting in Appellate Jurisdiction.2. The interplay between Section 104(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.3. Historical and judicial perspectives on the finality of orders under Section 104 CPC and their impact on Letters Patent Appeals.Summary:1. Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal:The core issue was whether a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a single Judge of the High Court sitting in Appellate Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined the historical context and judicial interpretations of Section 104 CPC and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The Court noted that the High Court of Madras had ruled that such an appeal was not maintainable based on Section 104(2) CPC.2. Interplay between Section 104(2) CPC and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent:The Supreme Court analyzed whether Section 104(2) CPC bars a Letters Patent Appeal. It was highlighted that Section 104(1) CPC saves appeals under 'any law for the time being in force,' which includes Letters Patent Appeals. The Court emphasized that Section 104(2) cannot override the saving clause in Section 104(1). The Court reiterated that a Letters Patent Appeal is a special jurisdiction conferred by the Letters Patent, which cannot be excluded by implication but only by express provision.3. Historical and Judicial Perspectives:The Court reviewed the historical evolution of Section 104 CPC and its predecessors, Section 588 of the Civil Procedure Codes of 1877 and 1882. It was noted that the Privy Council and various High Courts had differing views on whether Section 588 barred Letters Patent Appeals. The legislature intervened by introducing Section 4 and Section 104 CPC in 1908, which explicitly saved appeals under special laws, including the Letters Patent.The Court referred to several landmark judgments, including:- Hurrish Chunder Chowdhry vs. Kali Sundari Debia: The Privy Council held that Section 588 did not apply to appeals from one Judge of the High Court to the Full Court.- National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs. James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd.: The Supreme Court held that an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was maintainable against a judgment of a single Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act.- Union of India vs. Mohindra Supply Company: The Supreme Court held that Section 104(1) CPC saved the right to appeal under the Letters Patent.- Gulab Bai vs. Puniya: The Constitution Bench held that the words 'under any law for the time being in force' in Section 104(1) CPC saved Letters Patent Appeals.The Court concluded that the decisions in Resham Singh Pyara Singh vs. Abdul Sattar and New Kenilworth Hotel (P) Ltd. vs. Orissa State Financial Corporation were incorrect and overruled them. The Court reaffirmed that a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable unless expressly barred by a specific provision in the statute.The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and remitted the matters back to the High Court for a decision on merits.