M/S. M.M.T.C. LIMITED versus COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 170 · Decided: 03-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2CJ08] 15 S.C.R. 170 
~·' 
A 
MIS. M.M.T.C. LIMITED 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6418 of 2008) 
B 
NOVEMBER 3, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND 
AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
-...,. 
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 226 and 227: 
c 
Letters Patent.Appeal againstorder of Single Judge of 
the High Court in exercise· of power of superintendence under 
Article 227 of the Constitution - Maintainability of - Held: In 
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court may not 
D only set aside/quash the impugned judgment/order/ 
proceeding but could also make such directions as the 'facts 
/ 
and circumstances of the case warrants - High Court erred 
in holding that Letters Patent Appeal not maintainable - M.P. 
Uchacha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 
E 2005 - S.2(1). 
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution - Scope of -
Discussed. 
The question which arose for determination in this 
)r-
F appeal was as to whether the Letters Patent Appeal is 
maintainable against the order passed by the Single 
Judge of the High Court in exercise of power of 
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of 
India. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
-
HELD: 1.1. A bare reading of the order dated 
22.8.2006 of this Court in the earlier round of litigation 
shows that the direction was to consider the Letters 
H 
170 
M.M.T.C. LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL 171 
TAX & ORS. 
)---
Patent Appeal (LPA) on merits and time was granted to A 
prefer the LPA within the stipulated time. The High Court 
was directed to dispose of the LPA on merits if it was 
otherwise free from defect. The High Court was, 
therefore, not justified in holding that this Court's earlier 
order only waived the limitation for filing a Letters Patent 
B 
Appeal. On that score alone the High Court's order is 
unsustainable. [Para 6] [175a0-E] 
:.r-
1.2. The High Court seems to have gone by the 
nomenclature i.e. the description given in the writ petition c 
to be one under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High 
Court did not consider the nature of the controversy and 
the prayer involved in the Writ Petition. [Para 7] [175-F] 
1.3. This Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Karnath v. 
Syed Ahmad /shaque and Ors. held that the High Court D 
~ 
while issuing writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the 
Constitution can only annul a decision of a Tribunal 
whereas under Article 227 of the Constitution it can issue 
further directions as well. [Para 9] (176-8-C] 
Hari Vishnu Karnath v. Syed Ahmad lshaque and Ors., 
E 
AIR (1955) SC 233, relied on. 
2.1. The distinction between the two jurisdictions, 
-
namely, jurisdiction exercised by High Court to command 
--.( 
a writ of certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction exercised 
F 
by High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution 
stands almost obliterated in practice. Probably, this is the 
reason why it has become customary with the lawyers 
labelling their petitions as one common under Articles 
226 and 227 of the Constitution, though such practice has G 
been deprecated in some judicial pronouncement. 
~ Without entering into niceties and technicality of the 
subject, it is stated that the broad general difference 
between the two jurisdictions. The writ of certiorari is an 
exercise of its original jurisdiction by the High Court; 
H 
"172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not an original 
jurisdiction and in this isense it is akin to appellate, 
revisional or corrective jurisdiction. In a writ of certiorari, 
the record of the proceec;tings having been certified and 
sent up by the inferior court or tribunal to the High Court, 
B the High Court if inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, may 
simply annul or quash the proceedings and then do no 
more. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the High 
Court may not only quash or set aside the impugned 
proceedings, judgment 'or order but it may also make 
c such directions as the facts and circumstances of the 
case may warrant, maybe, by way of guiding the inferior 
court or tribunal as to the manner in which it would now 
proceed further or afresh as commended to or guided by 
the High Court. In appropriate cases the High Court, while 
.o exercising supervisory jurisdiction, may substitute such 
. a decision of its own in place of the impugned decision, · 
as the inferior court or tribunal should have made. Lastly, 
the jurisdiction under Article 226 of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.