Back
2000(4) Supreme 651
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., V.N. Khare, J.
Shankareppa M. Mutanki -Appellant
versus
B.M. Muktanki -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 478 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7821 of 1999)
Decided on 21-1-2000
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. We find that the learned Single Judge upset the finding of the Appellate Court and modified the decree of the trial Court in a Regular Second Appeal without framing any question of law or even indicating what substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. It appears that the learned Judge overlooked the requirement of Section 100 C.P.C., as amended. It has been repeatedly held by this Court in K. Shitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors.1 and Panchugopal Barua & Ors. v. Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors.2 that while hearing a Second Appeal, the Court does not acquire any jurisdiction to deal with it unless the question involved is a substantial question of law and the same is formulated. Under the circumstances, this appeal has to succeed and is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the High Court in the Second Appeal is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law. Keeping in view the mandate of Section 100 C.P.C. There shall be no order as to costs. Let the appeal be decided expeditiously.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
****************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Shankareppa M. Mutanki v. B.M. Muktanki, 2000(4) Supreme 651 : 2000 (4) JT 238 : 2000 ISJ (Banking) 470 : 2000 (3) Cur. C.C. 14
00021
00022
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
