Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written by
our professional essay writers.
Section 100 of CPC deals with "Second Appeal" moreover it includes the Substantial Question of
Law as well. The proviso reads as follows:
An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.
In an appeal under this Section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial
question of law involved in the appeal.
Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall
formulate that question.
The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of
the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question:
Provided that nothing takes away or abridges the power of the question of law, not formulated by it,
if it is satisfied that the case involves such question." [1]
The Delhi High Court laid down in DCIT v. Marudhar the following four tests to determine whether
the question involved is one of fact or law:
As the Tribunal is the ultimate fact-finding authority, if it has reached certain findings upon
examination of all relevant evidence and materials before it, the existence or otherwise of certain
facts at issue is a question of fact.
Any inference from certain facts is also a question of fact. If a finding of fact is arrived at by the
Tribunal after improperly rejecting evidence, a question of law can arise.
While the Tribunal acts on materials partly relevant and partly irrelevant, it can give rise to a question
of law if it is impossible to say to what extent the irrelevant material was used to arrive at the
finding. Such a finding is vitiated because of the use of inadmissible material.
A question of law will be a substantial of law if it directly and substantially affects the rights of the
parties. In order to be "substantial" it must be such that there may be some doubt or difference of
opinion or there is room for difference of opinion. If the law is well-settled by the Supreme Court, the
mere application of it to particular facts would not constitute a substantial question of law (M/s
Neek Ram Sharma & Co. vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and others).
The Delhi High Court pointed out that the term ``substantial question of law'' has not been defined.
But it has acquired a definite connotation through a catena of judicial pronouncements.
Test laid down in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
to determine whether a substantial question of law is involved are:
Whether it is an open question in the sense that the issue has not been settled by pronouncement of
the highest court in the land;
In Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, it was laid down that a question of law having a material bearing on
the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit)
will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled
legal principle emerging from binding precedents, and, involves a debatable legal issue. A
substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is not clear,
either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents,
The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in
our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially
affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is
not finally settled by this court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from
difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or
the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere
question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd, the question would
not be a substantial question of law (Sir Chunilal V Mehta & Sons Ltd v Century Spinning and
Manufacturing Co Ltd).
However for a second time in Roop Singh v. Ram Singh, this Court has expressed that the
jurisdiction of a High Court is confined to appeals involving substantial question of law. SC held that:
“It is to be reiterated that under Section 100 CPC of the High Court to entertain a second appeal is
confined only to such appeals which involve a substantial question of law and it does not confer any
jurisdiction on the High Court to interfere with pure questions of fact while exercising its jurisdiction
under section 100 CPC."[Para 7]
Subsequent to the above observation SC affirmed that "No question of law much less any
substantial question of law (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P. Mohanakala). Except “where a point
of law has not been pleaded or is found to be arising between the parties in the absence of any
factual format, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of
law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of the facts, the documentary evidence or the meaning
of entries and the contents of the document cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of
law."( Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v Savitribai Sopangujar & Ors) Furthermore “No question of law much
less any substantial question, was involved in the second appeal requiring interference by the High
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure." (Karuppiah
Ravichandran v GDS Engineering Pte Ltd and Another)
The Supreme Court held that the High Court may decline to answer any question of law which is
purely academic and the answer to which would have no bearing on any actual right or liability of the
taxpayer, or if the answer would not dispose of the real questions in issue between the parties, or if
the question is unnecessary or irrelevant. (CIT v Anusuya Devi)
The Delhi High Court quoted Lord Simonds to point out that even a pure finding of fact may be set
aside by the court if it appears that the Commissioner had acted without any evidence or on a view
of the facts which could not be reasonably entertained. The court may also intervene if it appears
that no person acting judicially, and properly instructed as to the relevant law, could have come to
the determination under appeal.
Conclusion:
The appeal is required to be heard only on the question so formulated includes Substantial Q of law.
The Court found that, in a number of cases, no efforts are made to differentiate between the
“question of law" and “substantial question of law". A right of appeal is neither natural nor an
inherent right attached to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in
accordance with the law in force at the relevant time. In Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal this Court in,
has stated that, “Now under Section 100 CPC, after the 1976 Amendment, it is essential for the High
Court to formulate a substantial question of law and it is not permissible to reverse the judgment of
the first appellate Court without doing so." (Para 10)
Yet again in Roop Singh v. Ram Singh this Court has expressed that the jurisdiction of a High Court
is confined to appeals involving substantial question of law of the said judgment reads: “It is to be
reiterated that under section 100 CPC jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal is
confined only to such appeals which involve a substantial question of law and it does not confer any
jurisdiction on the High Court to interfere with pure questions of fact while exercising its jurisdiction
under section 100 CPC." (Para 7)
The position has been reiterated in Kanahaiyalal and Ors. v. Anupkumar and Ors. (2003 (1) SCC 430)
and Ram Sakhi Devi (Smt.) v. Chhatra Devi and Others (2005 (6) SCC 181).
All Answers ltd, 'Judicial Interpretation of Substantial Questionable Law' (Lawteacher.net, June
2018) <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/judicial-interpretation-of-
substantial-questionable-law-administrative-law-essay.php?vref=1> accessed 16 June 2018
COPY TO CLIPBOARD
Our Dissertation Writing service can help with everything from full dissertations to
individual chapters.
Marking Service
Our Marking Service will help you pick out the areas of your work that need
improvement.
Request Removal
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the Law
Teacher website then please click on the link below to request removal:
Search
Services
Law Essay Writing Service
Law Dissertation Writing Service
Law Assignment Writing Service
All Law Services
Useful Links
OSCOLA Referencing Tool
LLM Resources
Law Help
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in
England and Wales. Company Registration No: 4964706. VAT Registration No: 842417633.
Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold,
Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ.
Fair Use Policy Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Cookies Complaints