Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. The State of
Madras  INSC 41 (19 February 1981)
MISRA, R.B. (J)
CITATION: 1981 AIR 968 1981 SCR (2) 948 1981
SCC (2) 479 1981 SCALE (1)390
Constitution of India-Article 133(1)(a) and
(c) (before amendment)-Certificate issued, not in conformity with law- Supreme
Court, if could revoke the certificate-Special leave, if could be granted after
revoking the certificate.
1. If the certificate granted by the Court
under sub- clauses (a) and (c) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the
Constitution, as it then stood, did not conform to legal requirements in as
much as it did not specify the substantial question of law which, according to
High Court, required determination and no reasons in respect of issuance of the
certificate appeared therein, the certificate could be revoked. [948 H] Sohan
Lal Naraindas v. Laxmidas Raghunath Gadit  1 S.C.C. 276; Sardar Bahadur
S. Indra Singh Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal  1 S.C.R. 392
2. In such a situation if it could be made
out that a substantial question of law really required determination, this
Court could treat the appeal as one by special leave after condoning the delay.
In the instant case no such question is involved at all and, therefore, special
leave cannot be granted. [949 B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 322 of 1970.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 25-3-1969
of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 1195 of 1970.
U.R. Lalit, P.H. Parekh and Miss Manik
Tarkunde for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KOSHAL J. 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 in as much 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
949 The preliminary objection is well founded
in view of the decisions of this Court in Sohan Lal Naraindas v. Laxmidas
Raghunath Gadit and in Sardar Bahadur S. Indra Singh Trust v. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Bengal.
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.
P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.