Article 133, The The Constitution Of India India 133. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil matters (1) An (1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of ndia if the High Court certifies under Article 13!A (a) that the case involves a su"stantial #uestion of la$ of general importance% and (") that (") that in the opinion of the High Court the said #uestion needs to "e decided "y the Supreme Court (&) 'ot$ithstanding (&) 'ot$ithstanding anything in Article 13&, any party appealing to the Supreme Court under clause ( 1 ) may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a su"stantial #uestion of la$ as to the interpretation of this Constitution has "een $rongly decided (3) 'ot$ithstanding (3) 'ot$ithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless arliament "y la$ other$ise provides, lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one udge of a High Court.
96. Appeal from original decree.- (1) decree.- (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such court
109. When appeals lie to the Supreme Court.- Subject to the provisions in Chapter !" of #art " of the Constitution and such rules as may, from time to time, be made by the Supreme Court regarding appeals from the Courts of !ndia, and to the provisions hereinafter contained, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a $igh Court, if the $igh Court certifies% (i) that the case involves a substantial &uestion of law of general importance and (ii) that in the opinion of the $igh Court the said &uestion needs to be decided by the Supreme Court
PART-II ART-II APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISD ICTION ORDER XVI HEARING OF APPEALSX Bengal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, Calcutta , AIR 1971 Cal 357
!"#$%##l$ "!v&'#' - (!) (!(-!)a)&(* )+"# '#$"&)# #"#$$ #()&!( - ! /$# &( 0a(#$
Bristol Tramways Co. v. Fiat Motors Ltd., 1912 4 6 31 8CA Coram: Cozens-Hardy,
LJ
MR,
Farwell
LJ
The plaintiff complained after the purchase of a Fiat mni!us chassis "for the road#, to !e used for the con$eyance of passen%ers around &ristol, in hea$y and hilly traffic conditions' The chassis pro$ed unfit for this purpose on
account
of
!rea(in%-down
too
often'
Held: There was an implied condition that the omni!us should !e reasona!ly fit for the declared purpose'
Eternit Everest Ltd. v. CV !raham, AIR 4223 # 473 l#a:a*# ! a$;#$)!$ $<##) - a(/a0)/&(* '##0) - &"l&#' =aa()+ ;+ )a'# ! /$a*#
"umner Permain # Co. v. $e!! # Co., 1944 1 6 55 8CA
Facts:
) sold tonic F& to *' ) (new the tonic was for * to carry on !usiness' )s tonic contained an acid that was ille%al in the country of *' * cannot (now le%ally sell the tonic' Ratio: +f the reason one cannot sell the %oods is simply a le%al re%ulation, then the %oods are still merchanta!le' Merchanta!le uality ma(es no claim with respect to le%al title' The meanin% is restricted to whether the %oods match the contract' -nalysis:
Merchanta!le uality does not co$er le%al title to %oods or the ri%ht to sell them' . Merchanta!le uality means that the %oods comply w/ the description in the 0 1 doesn#t mean that there must !e a person there ready to !uy the %oods 2that there !e a le%al !uyer or re-seller of %oods3' . The word salea!le does not mean le%ally salea!le' The meanin% is more restricted in terms of determinin% whether or not the %oods match the terms of the contract' Merchanta!le uality means the %oods constitute %ood tender, does not reuire that the !uyer 4li(e5 the %oods'
Forasol vs Oil & Natural Gas Commission, AIR 19! "C #!1 Precedents-English decisions not binding but have high pursuasive value. The English decisions are of Courts of a country from which we have derived our jurisprudence and a large part of our laws and in which the judgments were delivered by judges held in high repute. Undoubtedly, none of these decisions are binding upon this Court but they are authorities of high pursuasive value to which we may legitimately turn for assistance. hether the rule laid down in any of these cases can be applied by our Courts must, however, be judged in the conte!t of our own laws and legal procedure and the practical realities of litigation in our country.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Decided On: 15.04.1980 Appellants: Consolidated Coffee Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Respondent: Coffee Board Ban!alore
It is well known that our Sale o "oods Act 19!0 is "ased upon and is lar#el$ a reproduction o the %n#lish Sale o "oods Act 189! and in principle as well as in &ost details the law o sale o !oods in "oth the countries is now the sa&e and' thereore' %n#lish authorities on interpretation o dierent sections' althou#h not technicall$ "indin# in India' would ha(e #reat #ers$asi%e %al$e. It will "e pertinent to o"ser(e that our Section )4 is "ased upon Section 58 o the %n#lish Act' thou#h it is so&ewhat dierentl$ arran#ed* "ut Su"+section ,- o Section )4 is particularl$ in identical ter&s as Section 58,- o the %n#lish Act. Section )4,- o our Sale o "oods Act' "ein# in pan &ateria with Section 58,- o the %n#lish Sale o "oods Act 189!' will ha(e to "e interpreted in the sa&e &anner and we are thereore' o the (iew that it does not deal with the /uestion o passin# o the propert$ at auction sale "ut &erel$ deals with co&pletion o the contract o sale which takes place at the all o the ha&&er or at the announce&ent o the close o the sale in other custo&ar$ &anner "$ the auctioneer.
