Skip to content


Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. State of Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 322 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC968; 1981(1)SCALE390; (1981)2SCC479; [1981]2SCR948; 1981(13)LC312(SC)
ActsConstitution of India - Article 133(1)
AppellantExpress Newspapers Ltd.
RespondentState of Madras
Appellant Advocate U.R. Lalit,; P.H. Parekh and; Manik Tarkunde, Advs. Adv
Respondent Advocate A.V. Rangam, Adv.
Cases ReferredSardar Baliadur S. Indra Singh Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Decree dated March 25, 1969 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 1195 of 1970.
Excerpt:
.....india theatres ltd. v. municipal crporation of the city of poona, (1959) supp. 2 s.c.r. 71 and hubli electricity co. ltd. v. province of bombay ( 1948) 76 i.a. 57, referred to.   - 2. the preliminary objection is well founded in view of the decisions of this court in sohan lal naraindas v......preliminary objection is well founded in view of the decisions of this court in sohan lal naraindas v. laxmidas raghunath gadit : [1971]3scr319 and in sardar baliadur s. indra singh trust v. commissioner of income tax, bengal : [1971]82itr561(sc) .3. 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 after condoning the delay. that would have been certainly a reasonable course to follow if it was made out that a 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, therefore, refuse special leave, revoke the certificate granted by the high court and dismiss the appeal but with no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Koshal J.

1. A preliminary Objection has 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 inasmuch as-

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

(b) no reasons in support of the issuance of the certificate appear therein.

2. The preliminary objection is well founded in view of the decisions of this Court in Sohan Lal Naraindas v. Laxmidas Raghunath Gadit : [1971]3SCR319 and in Sardar Baliadur S. Indra Singh Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal : [1971]82ITR561(SC) .

3. 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 after condoning the delay. That would have been certainly a reasonable course to follow if it was made out that a 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, therefore, refuse special leave, revoke the certificate granted by the High Court and dismiss the appeal but with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //