EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD. versus THE STATE OF MADRAS

EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD.

THE STATE OF MADRAS

February 19, 1981 [A. D. KosHAL AND R. B. MISRA, JJ.]

Constitutiou of India-Article 133(l)(a) and (c) (before (lf/lendn1en1l Certificate issutd, not in confonnity with law-Supreme Court, if could revoke-the cenificate-Special leave, if could be rranted after revoking the certificate.

1. If the certificate granted by the Court under sub-clauses (a) and (c) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution, as it then stood, did not cooform· to leg:al requirements in as much as it did not specify the substantial question of law wkich, accordin~ to High Court, required determination and no reasons ig respect of ~ssuance of the certificate appeared therein, the certificate could be revoked. [948 HJ

Sohan Lal Naraindas v. Laxn?idas Raghunat/1 Gadit [19711 1 S.C.C. 276; Sardar B11hadur S. Indra Singh Trust v. Conunissioner of Inconie Tax, /Jengal [1972] I S.C.R. 392 followed. 2. In such situation if it could be made out that substantial question of law really required determination, this Court could treat the appeal as one by special leave after condoning the delay. In the instant case no such question is involved at all and, therefore, special leave cannot be granted. [949 B-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDJCTION : Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1970.

From the Judgment and Decree dated 25-3-1969 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 1195of1970.

U. R. Lalit, P. H. Parekh and Miss

Ma11ik Tarkunde for the

Appellant.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KosHAL J. preliminary objection bas been raised by Mr. Rangam to the effect that the certificate granted by the court under sub-clauses (a) and (c) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution of India, as it then stood, does not conform to legal requirements in-asmuch as-

(a) it does not specify the substantial question of law which the High Court states require determination; and

(b) no reasons in •upport ol the issu11.nco of th~ certified~ appoar tbocoilt.

The preliminary objection is well fonnded in view of the decisions of this Court in Sohan Lal Naraindas v. Laxmidas Raghunath Gadit(') and in Sardar Bahadur S. Indra Singh Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal(').

Faced with this situation Mr. Lalit wanted us tO' treat the appeal as one by special leave and prayed that such leave be granted now afterl condoning the delay. That would have been certainly reasonable course to follow if it was made out that substantial question of law really requires determination. We have gone through the impugned judgment and find that no such question is involved at all. We, there-fore, refuse special leave, revoke the certificate granted by the High Court and dismiss the appeal but with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

(I) [1971] l S;C.C. 276. (2) [1972] 1 S.C.R. 392.