Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a party who failed to make an oral application immediately after the passing or making of a judgment, decree, final order or sentence could later file a written application for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Analysis: Article 134A of the Constitution introduced a special and urgent procedure for certificates for appeal to the Supreme Court. It permits the High Court to act on its own motion and requires, where the aggrieved party seeks a certificate, that an oral application be made immediately after the judgment or order. The provision does not contemplate a written application at a later stage. The purpose of the amendment was to avoid delay and secure prompt determination, and that object would be defeated if a written application could be filed subsequently. The constitutional provision therefore prevails over any inconsistent procedural rule or limitation provision.
Conclusion: A party who does not make the required oral application immediately after the judgment or order cannot later file a written application for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Constitution prescribes an express and time-bound mode for seeking a certificate, that mode is exclusive and excludes a later written application by necessary implication.