Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Maintainability of Appeal under Article 136 - Article 136 of the Constitution of India grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India, but it does not confer a right to appeal ["SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO. LTD. vs VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD. . - Supreme Court"]; ["Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 586"]; ["Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 580"]; ["SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO. LTD. vs VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD. . - Supreme Court"]; ["Raja Velugoti Rangamannar Krishna Yachandra Bahdur VS R. D. K. Sita Devi Garu - Andhra Pradesh"]; ["KHODAY DISTILLERIES LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS KHODAY INDIA LIMITED) VS MAHADESHWARA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD. , KOLLEGAL (UNDER LIQUIDATION) REPRESENTED BY THE LIQUIDATOR - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 239"].
Nature of Proceedings and Scope - Appeals under Article 136 are discretionary and depend on the Supreme Court's grant of leave; they are not automatic rights, and the Court considers whether the order involves a substantial question of law or is an adjudicatory order ["SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO. LTD. vs VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD. . - Supreme Court"]; ["Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 586"]; ["Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 580"]; ["Nongpok Sekmai Collective Farming Co-operative Society Ltd. and others VS Sekmai Khunbi Joint Farming Co-operative Society Ltd. and others - Gauhati"]; ["Raja Velugoti Rangamannar Krishna Yachandra Bahdur VS R. D. K. Sita Devi Garu - Andhra Pradesh"]; ["KHODAY DISTILLERIES LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS KHODAY INDIA LIMITED) VS MAHADESHWARA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD. , KOLLEGAL (UNDER LIQUIDATION) REPRESENTED BY THE LIQUIDATOR - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 239"].
Against Orders by High Courts under Civil Revision or Article 227 - Generally, orders passed by High Courts under civil revision or Article 227 are not directly appealable to the Supreme Court under Article 136 unless a specific statutory provision or exceptional circumstance applies. For instance, where statutes provide for appeals to the Supreme Court via special leave, such appeals are maintainable ["Perna Ravindranath Thakur VS Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Telangana - Telangana"]; ["SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO. LTD. vs VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD. . - Supreme Court"]; ["Sahu Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. - Allahabad"].
Specific Cases and Exceptions - An appeal under Article 136 is possible only if the order is of a judicial or adjudicatory nature and the Court grants leave; interlocutory or administrative orders by High Courts or Tribunals generally require a separate statutory route, such as statutory appeals or writ petitions under Articles 226 or 227, and not directly under Article 136 ["SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO. LTD. vs VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD. . - Supreme Court"]; ["Nongpok Sekmai Collective Farming Co-operative Society Ltd. and others VS Sekmai Khunbi Joint Farming Co-operative Society Ltd. and others - Gauhati"]; ["M. Venkata Rao VS Union of India - Andhra Pradesh"]; ["Perna Ravindranath Thakur VS Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Telangana - Telangana"].
Conclusion - An order passed by a High Court under civil revision (Arclr 227) or under Article 226/227 is not maintainable as an appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 136 unless the Supreme Court grants special leave. The remedy is typically through a petition for special leave to appeal, not a direct appeal ["SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO. LTD. vs VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD. . - Supreme Court"]; ["Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 586"]; ["Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 580"]; ["Perna Ravindranath Thakur VS Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Telangana - Telangana"]; ["SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO. LTD. vs VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD. . - Supreme Court"].
In summary:An appeal against High Court orders under civil revision (Arclr 227) or under Articles 226/227 is not maintainable directly under Article 136 of the Constitution. Such appeals require the Supreme Court's discretionary leave, and the Court's power under Article 136 is not an automatic right but a special leave jurisdiction ["SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO. LTD. vs VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD. . - Supreme Court"]; ["Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 586"]; ["Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 580"].
In the intricate landscape of Indian constitutional law, litigants often navigate a maze of remedies when challenging court orders. A common query arises: whether an appeal is maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court against an order passed by the High Court under civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This question is particularly relevant in civil disputes, including those under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where hierarchical remedies play a crucial role.
This blog post delves into Supreme Court precedents, analyzes maintainability, and provides practical guidance. Note that this is general information based on judicial trends and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed by any court or tribunal in India. It is discretionary, not a right of appeal, and exercised sparingly, especially where alternative remedies exist. As held, Article 136 does not confer a right to a party to appeal to the Supreme Court. The said article confers discretion upon the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal in suitable cases. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 3 Supreme 208
Article 227 grants High Courts superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction. Orders under this are supervisory or revisional, akin to judicial functions, making them amenable to higher scrutiny.
The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that SLPs under Article 136 are maintainable against High Court orders passed in civil revision or under Article 227, provided lower remedies are exhausted. This stems from Article 136's plenary jurisdiction over High Court judicial or quasi-judicial orders.
Direct SLPs against district court or subordinate appellate orders (e.g., under Section 37/50 of the Arbitration Act) are typically not entertained if High Court revision under Section 115 CPC or Article 227 is available. In Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Vindhya Telelinks Ltd., the Court dismissed SLPs against District Judge orders, stating: We therefore reiterate that though the existence of an alternative remedy by itself will not take away the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136, this Court would not grant leave and entertain appeals against orders/judgments/decrees of the district court or courts subordinate thereto, if remedy by way of appeal or revision to the High Court or other court or forum is available. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 3 Supreme 208Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 586Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 580
The Court emphasized: Availability of even the remedy by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution... has been considered as an adequate alternative remedy, for the purposes of Article 136. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 3 Supreme 208
Similar views in ITI Ltd. v. Siemens, where direct SLP was dismissed, relegating parties to High Court revision under Section 115 CPC. I. T. I. LTD. VS Siemens Public Communications Network LTD. - 2002 4 Supreme 444
Once the High Court adjudicates under Article 227, Article 136 becomes viable. In a Consumer Protection Act case, the Supreme Court clarified: After High Court adjudicates and passes a final order, it is always open for either of parties to thereafter come before this Court by filing special leave petition, seeking leave to appeal under Article 136. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Suresh Chand Jain - 2023 5 Supreme 354
Article 136 covers any kind of judgment or order made by a Court or Tribunal including High Court supervisory orders under Article 227, which are judicial/quasi-judicial. Manju Verma VS State Of U. P. - 2004 8 Supreme 404
The Shin-Etsu judgments form a foundational chain: Trial court refuses arbitration reference → District Judge (appellate) remands → Direct SLP dismissed → Parties directed to High Court under Article 227/Section 115 → Post-HC order, SLP maintainable. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 3 Supreme 208Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 586Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 580
Himachal Pradesh High Court echoed this: Revision under Section 115 CPC maintainable against District Judge's appellate order under Section 37 Arbitration Act; thereafter, SLP implied. C. M. Chawla VS State of Himachal Pradesh - 2016 0 Supreme(HP) 859
In Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, the Court outlined Article 136's two stages: SLP (discretionary, no merger) and post-leave appeal (merger applies). Dismissal of SLP does not bar High Court remedies, affirming maintainability against HC orders. Kunhayammed VS State Of Kerala - 2000 5 Supreme 181
Section 37(3) bars second appeals but saves right to appeal to Supreme Court, interpreted as constitutional appeals (Articles 132/133) from HC or Article 136 post-HC. No bar on SLPs from HC revisional orders. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 3 Supreme 208
Several judgments reinforce Article 136's applicability to HC orders under Article 227/226:
In arbitration appointment disputes, orders by High Court Chief Justice under Section 11 are judicial, appealable only under Article 136 to Supreme Court. Indian Potash Limited VS Bohra Industries Ltd. - 2019 Supreme(Raj) 718State of Madras VS Madura Mills Company, Limited - 1963 Supreme(Mad) 115Indian Oil Corporation Ltd VS Ponty Malik Construction Co And Another - 2018 Supreme(P&H) 3315Jagdish Singh VS Union of India - 2016 Supreme(All) 2624PVR (PREVIOUSLY CINEMAX INDIA LTD) GURGAON, HARYANA VS MALIK BROTHERS - 2015 Supreme(MP) 1144Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited VS Kewal Singh Dhillon - 2010 Supreme(P&H) 2290
Letters Patent Appeals against Article 227 orders may be limited, pushing parties to Article 136. SWAPAN KUMAR BANDOPADHYAY AND ETC. VS SAIL - 2005 Supreme(Jhk) 841
No fetter on writs against commercial court orders, but post-HC, Article 136 applies. Raj. State Mines and Minerals Ltd. VS Ankur Minmine Product Pvt. Ltd. - 2019 Supreme(Raj) 828
Challenges to Armed Forces Tribunal orders bar direct writs, directing to Article 136, but HC Article 227 differs. MADHU LATA GAUR (NR-20124W, LT. COL. (MILITARY NURSING SERVICES) VS ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH, LKO. - 2015 Supreme(All) 479
These affirm the post-exhaustion pathway to Supreme Court.
While maintainable, success is not guaranteed:
To maximize chances:1. Exhaust High Court: File revision under Section 115 CPC/Article 227 against district orders first.2. Craft Strong SLP: Highlight exhaustion, substantial law question, or injustice.3. Avoid Direct SLPs: Risk dismissal and costs.4. Timeline Awareness: Act promptly post-HC order.
Generally, an SLP under Article 136 is maintainable against High Court orders in civil revision under Article 227, after exhausting lower remedies. This balances judicial hierarchy with Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction, as affirmed in Shin-EtsuShin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 3 Supreme 208, Consumer case Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Suresh Chand Jain - 2023 5 Supreme 354, and others.
Key Takeaways:- No direct SLP from district courts if HC remedy available. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 3 Supreme 208I. T. I. LTD. VS Siemens Public Communications Network LTD. - 2002 4 Supreme 444- Post-HC Article 227, Article 136 is the gateway. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Suresh Chand Jain - 2023 5 Supreme 354- Discretionary—focus on merit.
Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence. For tailored advice, engage legal experts.
References (Selected):1. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. VS Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. - 2009 3 Supreme 208 - Shin-Etsu (non-maintainability pre-HC).2. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Suresh Chand Jain - 2023 5 Supreme 354 - Post-HC SLP affirmed.3. Kunhayammed VS State Of Kerala - 2000 5 Supreme 181 - Merger doctrine.4. Others as cited inline.
#Article136, #SupremeCourtSLP, #Article227
passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. ... to Supreme Court, an appeal to Supreme Court by obtaining leave under article 136 should be held to be a remedy in regard to an appellant Supreme Court granting leave to appeal from any judgment, decree or order ... Article 136 does no....
No application under Article 136 of the Constitution was made on behalf of the Union of India and no Special Leave under Article 136 was given by the Supreme Court. Thus, the appeal to the Supreme Court by the Union of India was upon a certificate under Article 132 (1) of the Constitution. ... ... ( 16 ) IT was also argued that the a....
... ( 10 ) THE question: Whether a letters patent appeal against an order passed under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 is maintainable or not and whether such right can be curtailed without any express provision under the statute, fell for consideration before the Supreme Court ... Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the letter Patent....
Article 136 of the Constitution provides that notwithstanding anything in Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may in its discretion grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal ... The appellant would contend that as Article 136 contemplates #HL_STAR....
Article 136 of the Constitution provides that notwithstanding anything in Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may in its discretion grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal ... The appellant would contend that as Article 136 contemplates #HL_STAR....
The aggrieved person may file leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment passed by the High Court but in view of the bar of jurisdiction by clause (2) of Article 136, this Court cannot entertain appeal against the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal. ... According to him, the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order#HL_EN....
Article 136 of the Constitution provides that notwithstanding anything in Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may in its discretion grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal ... The appellant would contend that as Article 136 contemplates #HL_STAR....
At this stage, it is also required to be noted that where the statute specifically provided that against the decision of the Tribunal, only an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be maintainable, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L. ... Union of India, whereby the said High Court held that the writ petition under Ar....
Article 132 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation ... the High Courts, under this article....
Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or tribunal in the territory of India. ... Discussing the question as to whether an order under Section 146(IB) can be interfered with by the High #HL_....
(vii) Since an order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by the designated judge of that court is a judicial order, an appeal will lie against that order only under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court. There can be no appeal against an order of the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court designated by him while entertaining an application under Section 11(6) of the Act. (vi) Once the matter reaches the arbitral tribunal or the sole arbitrator, the High Court would not interfere with orders passed by the arbitrator or the....
(vii) Since an order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by the designated judge of that court is a judicial order, an appeal will lie against that order only under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court. There can be no appeal against an order of the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court designated by him while entertaining an application under Section 11 (6) of the Act. (vi) Once the matter reaches the arbitral tribunal or the sole arbitrator, the High Court would not interfere with orders passed by the arbitrator or th....
(vi) Once the matter reaches the arbitral tribunal or the sole arbitrator, the High Court would not interfere with orders passed by the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal during the course of the arbitration proceedings and the parties could approach the court only in terms of Section 37 of the Act or in terms of Section 34 of the Act. (vii) Since an order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by the designated judge of that court is a judicial order, an appeal will lie against that order only under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court. ....
(vii) Since an order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by the designated judge of that court is a judicial order, an appeal will lie against that order only under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court. There can be no appeal against an order of the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court designated by him while entertaining an application under Section 11(6) of the Act. (vi) Once the matter reaches the arbitral tribunal or the sole arbitrator, the High Court would not interfere with orders passed by the arbitrator or the....
(vii) Since an order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by the designated Judge of that Court is a judicial order, an appeal will lie against that order only under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court. There can be no appeal against an order of the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court designated by him while entertaining an application under Section 11(6) of the Act. (vi) Once the matter reaches the arbitral tribunal or the sole abitrator, the High Court would not interfere with orders passed by the arbitrator or the ....
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
