LexGANPAT RAI HIRALAL AND ANOTHER versus AGGARWAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LTD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1952 October 24 752 SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S (1953] GANPAT RAI ll[RAI1AL AND ANOTHER v. AGGARWAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LTD. MURARI LAL HARI RAM v. MARWARI CHAMBEH OF COMMERCE LTD. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, 0HANDRASEKHABA AIYAB and BHAGWATI JJ.] PepS1! Ordinance (X of 2006), ss.52, 116-Patiala States Judi- cature Farman, 1999-Appeal frmn order of single J1ul.ge-Certifi- cate of fitness-When necessary-Order made before Ordinance came into f01·ce-Petition for amendment th.,·eafter-Appeal from order dismissing petition-Necessity of certificate-Right of appeal-- Vested 1·ight--Effect of change of law. Section 116 of the Pepsu Ordinance X of 2005 (1948-1949) is a transitory regulation providing for Ri change over of proceedings from one set of courts in the covenanting State to others of like status in the Union, and for their continuance etc. in the latter courts. It does not mean that the proceedings must be treated as having freshly commenced. What is contemplated in the latter part of the section is a notional commencem0nt, and the section means that all rights which arose or are likely to arise in future shall remain intact notwithstanding the new set up and that they would be dealt with by the Union courts in place of the courts of the covenanting State. There is nothing in the section to justify the view that any taking away of a vested right of appeal retros-, pectively was intended. Under the Patiala States Judicature Farman of 1999 a certi- ficate was necessary for an appea.l to a Division Bench from an order of a single Judge of the Patiala High Court only in. respect of judgments and orders made in the exercise of civil appellate jurisdiction. Under the Pepsu Ordinance X of 2005 (1948-49) a certificate was necessary in all cases. In Appeal No. 152 an application made on 2nd February, 1950, for amendment of an order made by a Liquidation Judge in 1946 was dismissed and an appeal from the order of dismissal to a Division Bench was dis· missed on 1st May, 1950, for want of a certificate. In appeals Nos. 167 and 167A, the paymenl; orders were made on the 18th January, 1949, and appeals from those orders were dismissed on 3rd March, 1949, for want of a certificate: Held, (i) that as a petition for amendment was not a continu· ation of the" earlier proceedings but was in the nature of an ' S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 753 independent proooeding though connected with the order sought to be amended, it was governed by the law prevailing on its date, 1952 viz., the Pepsu Ordinance of 2005 under which a certificate was Ganpat Rai necessary, and in Appeal No. 152 the dismissal of the appeal to the Hira L 1 l Division Bench ior want of a certificate was right; and Another (ii) that with regard to Appeals Nos. 167 and 167.A, as the v. l law in force on the relevant dates was the Patiala States .Judi- Agga;w• cature Farman of 1999 the appellants had a right to appeal from Oharn ";!. the payment order without a certificate; this vested right could Oommsrce t ' not be taken away by a subsequent change in the law unless the later enactment expressly or by necessary implication was retros- pective in operation and· deprived them of such a right, that there was nothing in s.116 ol the Ordinance to show that it was intend- ed to have retrospective effect and the order of the High Court dismissing the appeals as incompetent was, therefore, erroneous. Colonial Sugar Refining Company v. Irving [1905] A.O. 369 referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 152, 167 and 167-A of 1951. Appeal from the Judgments dated April 25, and May 1, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature for P:ttiala and East Pun- jab Suates Union at Patiala (Teja Singh C. J. and Chopra J.) in L. P.A. R. I. A. O. No. 34 of 1950 and Civil Appeals Nos. 493/494 of Samwat 2005. Rang Behari Lal (Ram Nivas Sanghi, with him) for the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 167 and 167-A. Udai Bhan Chaudhuri for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 152. Lachhrnan Das Kaushal for the respondent in Civil Appeals Nos. 167 and 167-A. Ram Nivas Sanghi for the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 152. 1952. October 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J.-These appeals are connected and raise a common question of law. They come before us on special leave granted by the Pepsu High Court at Patiala under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of 11rticle 133 of the Constitution,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.