LexUMAJI KESHAO MESHRAM & ORS. versus RADHIKABAI W/O ANANDRAO BANAPURKAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/ 731 lllliUI KESBAO MESllRAM & ORS. v. RAJlllIKABAl W/O ANANDRAO llAllAPORKAR & Allll. MARCH 14, 1986 [O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND D.P. MADON, JJ.) Letters Patent 1929 (Bombay) Clause 15 : Judgment of a Single Judge 226/227 Intra-COurt Appeal in a petition under Article - Whether competent and maintainable. Expression "pursuant to section 108 of the Government of India Act" - Interpretation of. Expression "Power of superintendence under the provisions of section 107 of the Government of India Act" - Whether to be construed as a reference to Art. 227 of the Constitution. Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 : Rule 18 - Expression "shall be heard and· finally disposed of" - Whether negatives filing of an appeal in a proceeding under Art. 226/ A B c D 227 of the Constitution. E Indian High Courts Act, 1861, Government of India Acts 1915- 1919 and 1935 - Whether Constitutional Laws. Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 225, 226 and 227 - Whether confer wholly new powers on the High Courts existing at the commencement of the Constitution. Expression "subject · to the provisions of this F Constitution" in Article 225 - Interpretation of. G Joint petition under Articles 226 and 227 - Implication of - Whether to be treated as one under Article 226. Article 227 - Power of superintendence - Whether in addition to that conferred by Article 226. H A B c D E F G H 732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19861 1 s.c.R. Words and Phrases : "Judgment" - Meaning of - Clause 15, Letters Patent 1929 (Bombay), Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, Bombay, in its finally amended and operative form (January 1929) provided that an J appeal shall lie to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, from a judgment of one Judge of the High Court, pursuant to a.108 of the Government of India Act of 1915, not being (a) a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court, (b) an order made in the exercise of revisionsl jurisdiction, (c) a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of s.107 of the Government of India Act of 1915, or (d) a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of criminal ~ jurisdiction. Rule 18 of Chapter XVII, of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, provides that applications under Art. 226 or Art. 227 of the Constitution arising ~ut of the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under any enac.tment, ms.y be heard and finally disposed of by a Single Judge appointed in this behalf by the Chief Justice. The appellants' revision application having been allCllled by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the first respondent filed a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution before the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Bombay. By reason of the aforesaid r.18 the petition was heard by a Single Judge and allowed, restoring the order of the Sub-·Divisional Officer. .JI Against this judgment and order the appellants filed an appeal under cl.15 of the Letters Patent to a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was dislliissed as not being cotopetent in view of the earlier decision of a Full Bench in Sbar*ar llaroba Sa!nnte I. Ors. y, Gy,,,,,.bancl Lobhecband Kothari 6 Ors. decided on September 3, 1980, The Full Bench in that case had concluded that no intra-court appeal lay under cl.15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in a petition filed under Art. -~ 226 or 227 on the prelliises : (1) that on the coamencement of the Constitution cl.15 of the Letters Patent having ceased to be in operation it could not control matters expressl;' UMAJI KESHAO MESHRAM v. RADHlKABAI 733 A provided in the Constitution, for the High Courts then in existence became organically different High Courts as they acquired a different origin, nature and character since (a) the Constitution had effected a break with the past and made absolutely a new original and vital beginning as far as origin, source of power and conferment of constitutional B authority was concerned, and (b) the provision for intra-court appeal in the Letters Patent dealt with different jurisdictions under the ordinary law only and not with any jurisdiction conferred upon the High
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.