RAJA BAHADUR MOTILAL BOMBAY MILLS LTD Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SO far as the application for a Certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Act, 133 (1) of the Constitution of India is concerned, the value of the subject matter of the dispute in the Court of the first instance and still in dispute on appeal being the property which was sold in pursuance of the directions contained in the Decree Absolute for sale, was and is not less than Rs. 25,000/ -. As a matter of fact, the sale took place at Rs. 20,00,000/- the requirement of Clause (a) of Art. 133 is fulfilled.

(2.) OUR judgment and decree affirms the decision of the Court immediately below and it is therefore necessary to consider whether we should further certify that the appeal involves substantial questions of law.

(3.) IN paragraph 7 of the petition 13 questions have been set out as being substantial questions of law arising in the proposed appeal to the Supreme Court. The 13 questions cover closely typed about three and a half pages of foolscap size. Some of the questions contain an argument or a hypothesis and then a question of law and some others more questions than one in one question. It is highly desirable that a question of law should be stated with precision and brevity to bring out the correct point of law involved. It can never within itself make a presumption or hypothesis. Moreover, as pointed out by Mr. Thakkar, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 even if a question be a question of law Art. 133 (1) requires that it must be substantial question of law and the petition for a certificate must set out how what the petitioner states to be questions of the petitioner states to be questions of law are substantial questions of law. There is no such statement in this petition as to why or how according to the petitioner any of the questions of law is a substantial question of law. Mr. Thakkar has contended that in the absence of the formulation of proper questions of law and in the absence of any statement in the petition as to how any of the questions of law is a substantial question of law, this petition should be rejected. Mr. Thakkar's contention has very great force. It may be that hereafter unless the petition itself clearly and properly formulates what according to the petitioner are questions of law and thereafter states how according to the petitioner those questions of law are substantial questions of law such petitions may have to be rejected. In the absence of such a formulation and the indication of the material showing it to be a substantial question of law, the respondents in such petitions are left to argue after merely hearing the oral arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and the Court has to necessarily hear long arguments or to find our for itself whether in fact a question of law exists and whether that question of law is a substantial question of law. In this case, however, we do not propose to take the extreme step of rejecting this petition on that ground but it should not be assumed that in future laxity in this behalf will be treated with the same leniency.