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>Appeal dismissed as order didn't meet 'judgment' criteria under Delhi HC Act</h1> <h3>University of Delhi and Anr. Versus Hafiz Mohd. Said and Ors.</h3> University of Delhi and Anr. Versus Hafiz Mohd. Said and Ors. - AIR 1972 Delhi 102 Issues Involved:1. Whether an appeal by the University of Delhi lies under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act against the order of a learned single judge.2. Interpretation of the term 'judgment' in Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act.3. Applicability of Section 104 and Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appeals under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether an appeal by the University of Delhi lies under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act against the order of a learned single judge:The judgment discusses the maintainability of an appeal by the University of Delhi under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act. It was not disputed that if an appeal lay only against those orders specified in Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the present appeal would not be maintainable. The judgment clarified that Section 10(1) of the Act provides for an appeal against the judgment of a single judge to a Division Court but does not indicate which orders are appealable nor define the term 'judgment.'2. Interpretation of the term 'judgment' in Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act:The court examined whether the term 'judgment' in Section 10(1) should be interpreted by the tests laid down by various High Courts under the Letters Patent. The judgment noted that the term 'judgment' has been subject to various interpretations by different High Courts, and there has been no consistent and uniform interpretation. The court concluded that there is no compelling reason to interpret 'judgment' in Section 10(1) by reference to the tests given in various decisions under the Letters Patent. Instead, it should be interpreted as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, meaning the statement given by the judge of the grounds of a decree or order.3. Applicability of Section 104 and Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appeals under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act:The judgment analyzed the applicability of Section 104 and Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code to appeals under Section 10(1) of the Act. It was emphasized that Rule 19 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967, applies the provisions of the Code to proceedings on the original side, except to the extent otherwise provided in the Rules. The court held that there is no conflict between Section 10(1) and Rule 19, as Section 10(1) deals with the forum of appeal while Rule 19, read with Order 43 Rule 1, indicates the orders which are appealable. The judgment concluded that an appeal under Section 10(1) would be competent only if it falls within Section 104 or Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code.Conclusion:The court held that an appeal under Section 10(1) of the Act against the order of a single judge in the exercise of ordinary original civil jurisdiction to a Division Court lies only in those cases where an order is a judgment as defined in the Code. Appeals will lie only against those orders passed by the single judge which are mentioned in Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. Consequently, the impugned order of the learned single judge is not one of those specified in Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code, and hence no appeal is competent under this Section. The appeal was dismissed as incompetent, with no order as to costs due to the important question of law raised.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
