CHUNILAL V MEHTA SONS LIMITED ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA INTERVENER Vs. CENTURY SPINNING MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in an appeal from the judgment of a single judge of that Court. The claim in appeal before the High Court was for about 26 lakhs of rupees. Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant applied for a certificate under Art. 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The judgment of the High Court in appeal was in affirmance of the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the appellant's suit for damages and, therefore, it was necessary for the appellant to establish that a substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the question raised concerned the interpretation to be placed on certain clauses of the managing agency agreement upon which their claim in the suit was founded and that its the interpretation placed by the appeal court on those clauses was erroneous and thus deprived them of the claim to a substantial amount the matter deserved to be certified by the High Court under Art. 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The learned judges dismissed the application without a judgment apparently following their previous decision in Kaikhushroo Pirojsha Ghiara vs. C. P. Syndicate Ltd., 50 Bom LB 744. The appellants, therefore, moved this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution for grant of special leave which was granted. In the application for special leave the appellant had raised a specific contention to the effect that the view taken by the High Court with regard to the application for certificate under Art. 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution was wrong, that the appellant was entitled to appeal to this Court as a matter of right and that while considering the appeal this question should also be decided. The appellant pointed out that the view taken by the Bombay High Court on the point as to what is a substantial question of law runs contrary to the decision of the Privy Council in Raghunath Prasad Singh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Partabgarh, 54 Ind App 126:

(2.) It is not disputed before us that the question raised by the appellant in the appeal is one of law because what the appellant is challenging is the interpretation placed upon certain clauses of the managing agency agreement which are the foundation of the claim in suit. Indeed it is well settled that the construction of a document of title or of a document which is the foundation of the rights of parties necessarily raises a question of law.

(3.) The next question is whether the interpretation of a document of the kind referred to above raises a substantial question of law. For, Art. 133 (1) provides that where the judgment, decree or final order appealed, from affirms the decision of the court immediately below in any case other than a case referred to in sub-cl. (c) an appeal shall be to this Court if the High Court certifies that the appeal involves some substantial question of law. To the same effect are the provisions of S. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the old Judicial Commissioner's Court of Oudh the view was taken that a substantial question of law meant a question of general importance. Following that view its successor, the Chief Court of oudh, refused to grant a certificate to one Raghunath Prasad Singh whose appeal it had dismissed. The appellant, therefore, moved the Privy Council for special leave on the ground that the appeal raised a substantial question of law. The Privy Council granted special leave to the appellant and while granting it made the following observation in their judgment: