Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: due date for vat payment :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: empanelment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT
 
 
« News Headlines »
 GST registration mandatory for TDS entities
 Govt rules out extension for filing GSTR-3B returns after December
 Tax department’s e-filing portal out of action for 2 hours
 Use ITR-2 to show salary and capital gains income
  TDS Applicability On Government Contracts Under Gst (Under Section 51 Of The Cgst Act, 2017)
  How to file ITR for FY 2016-17 and all the links you need
 All about E-way Bill under GST
 Good and simple tax: on the GST regime
 Seeks to extend the time limit for filing of GSTR-1, GSTR-2 and GSTR-3
 Good news, find Tax Return Preparers soon at a place near you; 5 things to know
 Filing of GST return

Appeals without substance
April, 09th 2008
Despite the SC's chastisements, high courts continue to admit second appeals, clogging the system.
 
Two things that get on the nerves of a litigant are recurrent adjournments by the courts and interminable appeals up to the Supreme Court. One appeal is a right, but in practice, half-a-dozen appeals are possible. A lawyer will advise a losing client to take another gamble in the next highest court in the judicial pyramid. Some of them do succeed, as a shrewd lawyer might meet an unsuspecting judge there. It was to reduce the steps in the judicial ladder that an amendment was made in the Civil Procedure Code in 1976. According to it, the high courts should not accept a second appeal in a case unless a substantial question of law was specifically stated.
 
However, the rule is broken by the high courts very often, either under pressure from counsel or for other reasons. In the past year alone, there were about 50 full-scale judgments of the Supreme Court in which the apex court dealt with the second appeal syndrome and criticised various high courts for hearing them even when there were no substantial questions of law involved. The trend continues to clog the legal system, despite repeated chastisement of the high courts by the Supreme Court.
 
The latest in the series is Kashmir Singh vs Harnam Singh, an appeal against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana high court. The main argument against the high court decision was that it had heard the second appeal in the dispute without drafting the substantial questions. This requirement is now mandatory according to Section 100 of the code. The Supreme Court found that the high court had not followed this rule. Therefore, the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the high court for reconsideration of the case after formulating the substantial question of law.
 
Disapproving of the action of the high court, the judgment said: It has been noted time and again that without insisting for a statement of the substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal and formulating the same at the time of admission, the high courts have been issuing notices and generally deciding second appeals without adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 100 of the code. The conditions must be strictly fulfilled. The second appeal cannot be decided on merely equitable grounds. The concurrent findings of facts will not be disturbed by the high court in exercise of the powers under this section. Further, a substantial question of law has to be distinguished from a substantial question of fact.
 
The phrase substantial question of law cannot be precisely defined but the Supreme Court has made several attempts in the past decade. One of the earliest attempts was in the case of Century Spg & Mfg Co Ltd. The court said that the proper test for determining whether a question of law is substantial is to see whether it is of general importance or whether it directly or 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 the final court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. The high court cannot investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the trial court. It can, however, interfere when it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate court were wrong, being contrary to the provisions of law or their interpretation by the apex court. It can also step in if the lower court had based its decision on inadmissible evidence or ignored material evidence.
 
It is quite likely that the court below might have made a serious error, as the judiciary at the lower levels also suffers from a paucity of competent incumbents. However, that is no reason for the high court to intervene and start the procedure from square one. In Gurdev Kaur vs Kaki (2006), the Supreme Court remarked that indiscriminate and frequent second appeals led to accumulation of arrears in the high courts. The legislature never wanted a second appeal to become a third trial on facts or one more dice in the gamble, it had said.
 

Another jurisprudential reason for restricting the number of appeals is that the quest for absolute truth must end somewhere. The 54th report of the Law Commission, on the basis of which the 1976 amendment was introduced, said as much. The pursuit of pure justice must be reconciled with the doctrine of finality. In one judgment, the Supreme Court said that even litigants have to be protected against too persistent a pursuit of their goal of perfectly satisfactory justice. The number of second appeals indicates that the high courts have reasons of their own to keep the hopes of the litigants at unattainable levels.

M J Antony  

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Privacy Policy

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions