Case: Bombay Gas Co. Ltd Vs. Jagannath Pandurang &amp; Others

the Judicial Committee in Surapati Ray and others v. Ram Narayan Mukherjee and others, 50 I.A. 155. In that decision the question arose under S. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the validity of the certificated granted by the High Court. Though the rent claimed in the suits was less than Rs. 10,000 the High Court had granted a certificate of fitness on the ground that the value of the subject-matter was over Rs. 10,000. The objection taken before the Judicial Committee regarding the validity of the certificated on the ground that the subject-matter was below the appealable value, was rejected as follows :".......... The subject-matter in dispute relates to a recurring liability and is in respect of a property considerably above the appealable value. The certificate in the circumstances is quite in order".37. It is to be noted that the liability which was being denied as due to the landlord, by way of rent from the lands in question was in respect of the properties in question and it was on that basis that the certificate was held to be valid.38. Both the above decisions of the judicial Committee have no application to the facts of the present case on hand. The principle is that a claim made by one party and resisted by another is ordinarily the subject-matter of the dispute in the trial Court and continues to be the subject-matter in the appellate Courts. In the case before us the claims for overtime wages and weekly off wages before the authorities were for a specified period. The claims for the identical periods were the subject-matter in the appeals before the Court of Small Causes. The High Court had also to consider the correctness of the decision of the Court of Small Causes regarding the claims made by the workmen for the particular periods. The appellant was not entitled to notionally add on to the amount originally claimed by the workmen for particular periods, any further amounts on the ground that they must be considered to have accrued due to the workmen till the date of the judgment of the High Court. If the subsequent additions made to the original claim are accepted and correct, then the position would be that if it is an ordinary civil litigation, the subject-matter of the suit and its value would vary with the length of time during which the suit may be pending in the Courts. Such a position is not warranted by the provisions of Art. 133(1) as laid down by this Court in Chhitarmal v. M/s. Shah Pannalal Chandulal, (1965) 2 S.C.R. 751. If in the proposed appeal to this Court there is no claim or question raised respecting property, other than the subject matter of dispute, cl. (a) of Art. 133(1) will apply. That clause has not been invoked in this case by the High Court.39. It is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Sorabji that as the appellant will have to face from its workmen in future claims similar to the one recognised by the High Court, there is involved a claim or question in respect of property of the value of not less than Rs. 20,000 in addition to or other than the subject-matter of appeal. In the first place, this contention proceeds on the assumption that the judgment of the High Court directs the appellant to pay in future amounts not less than Rs. 20,000. This assumption is basically erroneous, as there is no such direction given by the High Court. The payment of wages as for overtime or weekly off days will depend upon several circumstances. If overtime work is not taken, then no payment need be made. If overtime work is taken for a lesser time, then the amount to be paid will also be less.40. In our opinion, this is not a case where the decision of the High Court, apart from dealing with the subject-matter in dispute before it, has the effect of affecting the rights of the appellant, regarding other properties, including money. We may give an instance where a final judgment may have an impact or affect properties, other than the subject-matter in dispute. In a suit for mandatory injunction directing a defendant to vacate a land, the subject-matter of the suit may be only of the value of Rs. 1,500, but the decree granted by the High Court may result in the defendant therein being obliged to remove buildings worth more than Rs. 20,000 so as to give vacant possession of the land in accordance with the decision of the High Court. In such a case, though the value of the subject-matter in dispute before the High Court may be only Rs. 1,500, the judgment can be considered to involve indirectly a claim or question respecting property (in this case the buildings) of the value of not less than Rs. 20,000. Such a case may attract Art. 133(1)(b). The position before us is entirely different. The judgment of the High Court has only adjudicated upon the subject-matter of the specified claim of the workmen which was, as mentioned earlier, for a particular period. That judgment does not involve directly or indirectly, apart from the subject-matter of the writ petition, any claim or question respecting property or money of the value of Rs. 20,000 and more. In this view, we are of the opinion that the certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 133(1)(b) is not valid and proper.41. In the view that we take that the certificate granted by the High Court is not valid and that the appeal brought on such a certificate is not sustainable, we do not express any opinion on the merits, though arguments were heard on the same.42. As the certificate issued by the High Court under Art. 133(1)(b) is not proper and valid, the only course open to us is to revoke the certificate and set aside the order of the High Court granting the same.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]16. From the above, it will be seen that the High Court has not given any indication as to how it issued the certificate under Art. 133(1)(b). But one thing is clear that it did not grant the certificate on the basis of the claim made by the appellant either under cl. (a) or cl. (c) Art. 133(1). On the basis of the claims made by the workmen as overtime wages and weekly off days wages for the particular periods, the appellant had calculated at the same rate for even subsequent periods till the date of the judgment of the, High Court and claimed that the amount or value in dispute in appeal to this Court is over Rs. 26,822.09. The appellant had also raised a point in its further affidavit before the High Court that it will have to meet in future also claims from its workmen and as such it will have to face a recurring liability. On this basis the appellant has raised a plea that the judgment of High Court involves directly or indirectly a claim or question respecting property of the value of Rs. 20,000 and more. In view of the fact that the High Court has granted the certificate under Art. 133(1)(b), it has to be presumed that it has accepted the appellants plea that a certificate could be granted under the said clause when there is a recurring liability, which, if calculated for subsequent years will be at least Rs. 20,000 and more. TheEven on the basis of the valuation worked out by the appellant, it is seen that the claim for overtime wages which was filed before the Additional Authority was valued only at Rs. 18,221.25 as per the amended claim at 1 1/2 times of wages, though according to the respondents the amount of claim does not exceed Rs. 10,660. Similarly, the claim for weekly off wages filed by another set of workmen before the Third Additional Authority, even as per the appellants calculation was only Rs. 6,675.84. The claim for overtime wages and weekly off wages, each of them taken separately does not exceed Rs. 20,000. Though the appeals against the decision of the two authorities were filed before the Court of small Causes, it is to be noted that separate appeals were filed by different workmen and the appellants in respect of these two different categories of claims. Though the Court of Small Causes disposed of all the appeals by a common judgment, nevertheless, the claim in respect of overtime wages was dealt with apart and different from claim for weekly of wages. Even before the High Court, though one writ petition was filed by all the workmen, the claims under two different heads for overtime wages and weekly off wages were dealt with separately by the High Court. It is not as if that the reasons given by the High Court for upholding the claims for overtime wages automatically resulted on the allowing of the claim for weekly off wages also. In fact entirely different considerations apply for the two different sets of claims and that has been kept in view by the High Court. Though, ultimately, the High Court has delivered only a common judgment, nevertheless, the decision related to two different sets of claims, each having nothing in common with the other. Therefore, it was not open to the appellant to ask this Court to proceed on the basis that there was only one single and common claim dealt with by the High Court in its judgment. Therefore, there was no question of any consolidation of all the claims before the High Court. In this view, it will be seen that, even according to the calculations made by the appellant, the value of the subject matter of the claim with respect to overtime wages can only be the same as was before the Additional Authority, namely, Rs. 18,221.25, which is less than Rs. 20,000. Similarly, the amount or value of the claim which was adjudicated upon by the High Court in respect of weekly off wages was also of the same value as Rs. 6,675-84. As was the case before the Third Additional Authority, which claim is also less than Rs. 20,000. Therefore, considering the matter from this point of view, it is clear that the value of the subject-matter of the claim before the High Court in respect of each of these matters was less than Rs. 20,000.The appellant, as mentioned earlier, has calculated at the same rate as claimed for overtime wages and weekly off wages for subsequent years up to the date of the judgment of the High Court and has stated that so calculated the amount or value of the subject-matter of the claim relating to weekly off wages exceeds Rs. 30,000. Similarly, the amount or value of the subject-matter of the claim of overtime wages exceeds Rs. 20,000 and hence it is stated that the judgment of the High Court involves directly or indirectly a claim or question respecting property of the value of Rs. 20,000 and more.From the facts in that case it is clear that the High Court was dealing with the question whetherthe decision of the High Court will have far reaching effect on the other properties of the appellant therein, though those properties were not thesubject-matter of disputein the appeal.This decision in fact emphasises quite rightly that to attract cl. (b) of Art. 133(1) one has to look to the effect of the judgment sought to be appealed against on other properties which are not thesubject-matter of disputeand are not comprised as such in the litigation.Similarly, the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. S. L. Mathias, A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 352,   is also of no assistance to the appellant. The facts of the said decision show that the High Court was of the view that there is a difference of opinion between the High Courts on the effect of the proviso 2 to S.4(2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 19221922. The High Court was of the view that "there can be no doubt that the question involved is a substantial question of law", and on this basis granted a certificate of fitness. It is clear that the High Court granted the certificate on the ground that there was a substantial question of law involved in the appeal and as such it was a fit one for appeal to the Judicial Committee.32. Mr. Sorabji then referred us to the decision of the Madras High Court in G. Appuswamy Chettiar and another v. R. Sarangapani Chettiar and others, (1965) 1 I.L.R. Mad. 361. In that case the suit was for a declaratory relief regarding the invalidity of the adoption of a particular person. The certificate was asked for on the ground that the decision of the High Court involves directly or indirectly a claim or question respecting property of the value of Rs. 20,000 and more. It was accepted by the High Court that if leave to appeal was not granted to the petitioners therein, they will lose an estate worth more than Rs. 68,000 though the estate itself was not directly thesubject-matter of disputeeither in the trial Court or the High Court. The High Court further held that in a suit for a declaration of adoption a claim made by the reversioners to the property cannot be considered to be too remote. It is on this ground that the certificate was granted. It is clear from the judgment of the High Court that final decision of the high court in that case did affect the rights of the petitioners therein to properties of the value of more than Rs. 68,000. It is on that basis that the certificate was granted under Art. 133(1)(b).In our opinion, the decisions relied on by Mr. Sorabji do not support his contention that the certificate granted by the High Court, in the case before us, under Art. 133(1)(b) is proper and valid. In fact the said decisions clearly bring out the distinction between cls. (a) and (b) of Art. 133(1) and they lay down that only when the judgment or final order affects property which is not the subject-matter of the litigation Art. 133(1)(b) will apply. Those decisions are in conformity with the principles laid down by this Court in Chhitarmal v. M/s. Shah Pannalal Chandulal, (1965) 2 S.C.R. 751.34. It is clear that interest, unless granted by the decree of the trial Court, cannot be notionally added to inflate the value of the claim in the appeal so as to make it appear that on the date of the judgment of the High Court the value is not less than Rs. 20,000. On the same principle, we have already pointed out that mesne profits, which have not been decreed by the trial Court, cannot be added to the original claim made in the suit, so as to enable a party to plead that the value in the proposed appeal on the date of the judgment of the High Court is more than Rs. 20,000.35. We may refer to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Moti Chand and others v. Ganga Parshad Singh and another, 29 I.A. 40, where interest awarded under the decree of the trial Court was taken into account for the purpose of considering the value in the appeal before the High Court. The suit was for recovery of a certain amount together with interest. The trial Court passed a decree for Rs. 9,496 and awarded interest to the plaintiff at Rs. 570 per year on the decreed amount, until realisation. By the time the High Courts decree was made, the amount at issue had reached to Rs. 10,636 with further contingent increment. Under S. 596 of the old Civil Procedure Code, certificate was asked for from the High Court for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee. The High Court declined to grant the certificate on the ground that the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance was not Rs. 10,000 as required by the said section, though the amount or value of the matter in dispute on appeal to Her Majesty in Council was above Rs. 10,000. No doubt, this decision is not on the question regarding matters covered by cl. (b) of Art. 133(1). But we are only referring to this decision to show that interest can be taken into account for the purpose of considering the value in an appeal, provided the decree itself has awarded interest.We may also refer to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Surapati Ray and others v. Ram Narayan Mukherjee and others, 50 I.A. 155. In that decision the question arose under S. 110 of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the validity of the certificated granted by the High Court. Though the rent claimed in the suits was less than Rs. 10,000 the High Court had granted a certificate of fitness on the ground that the value of the subject-matter was over Rs. 10,000. The objection taken before the Judicial Committee regarding the validity of the certificated on the ground that the subject-matter was below the appealable value, was rejected as followsThe subject-matter in dispute relates to a recurring liability and is in respect of a property considerably above the appealable value. The certificate in the circumstances is quite in order".It is to be noted that the liability which was being denied as due to the landlord, by way of rent from the lands in question was in respect of the properties in question and it was on that basis that the certificate was held to be valid.38. Both the above decisions of the judicial Committee have no application to the facts of the present case on hand. The principle is that a claim made by one party and resisted by another is ordinarily the subject-matter of the dispute in the trial Court and continues to be the subject-matter in the appellate Courts. In the case before us the claims for overtime wages and weekly off wages before the authorities were for a specified period. The claims for the identical periods were the subject-matter in the appeals before the Court of Small Causes. The High Court had also to consider the correctness of the decision of the Court of Small Causes regarding the claims made by the workmen for the particular periods. The appellant was not entitled to notionally add on to the amount originally claimed by the workmen for particular periods, any further amounts on the ground that they must be considered to have accrued due to the workmen till the date of the judgment of the High Court. If the subsequent additions made to the original claim are accepted and correct, then the position would be that if it is an ordinary civil litigation, the subject-matter of the suit and its value would vary with the length of time during which the suit may be pending in the Courts. Such a position is not warranted by the provisions of Art. 133(1) as laid down by this Court in Chhitarmal v. M/s. Shah Pannalal Chandulal, (1965) 2 S.C.R. 751. If in the proposed appeal to this Court there is no claim or question raised respecting property, other than the subject matter of dispute, cl. (a) of Art. 133(1) will apply. That clause has not been invoked in this case by the High Court.It is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Sorabji that as the appellant will have to face from its workmen in future claims similar to the one recognised by the High Court, there is involved a claim or question in respect of property of the value of not less than Rs. 20,000 in addition to or other than the subject-matter of appeal. In the first place, this contention proceeds on the assumption that the judgment of the High Court directs the appellant to pay in future amounts not less than Rs. 20,000. This assumption is basically erroneous, as there is no such direction given by the High Court. The payment of wages as for overtime or weekly off days will depend upon several circumstances. If overtime work is not taken, then no payment need be made. If overtime work is taken for a lesser time, then the amount to be paid will also be less.40. In our opinion, this is not a case where the decision of the High Court, apart from dealing with the subject-matter in dispute before it, has the effect of affecting the rights of the appellant, regarding other properties, including money. We may give an instance where a final judgment may have an impact or affect properties, other than the subject-matter in dispute. In a suit for mandatory injunction directing a defendant to vacate a land, the subject-matter of the suit may be only of the value of Rs. 1,500, but the decree granted by the High Court may result in the defendant therein being obliged to remove buildings worth more than Rs. 20,000 so as to give vacant possession of the land in accordance with the decision of the High Court. In such a case, though the value of the subject-matter in dispute before the High Court may be only Rs. 1,500, the judgment can be considered to involve indirectly a claim or question respecting property (in this case the buildings) of the value of not less than Rs. 20,000. Such a case may attract Art. 133(1)(b). The position before us is entirely different. The judgment of the High Court has only adjudicated upon the subject-matter of the specified claim of the workmen which was, as mentioned earlier, for a particular period. That judgment does not involve directly or indirectly, apart from the subject-matter of the writ petition, any claim or question respecting property or money of the value of Rs. 20,000 and more. In this view, we are of the opinion that the certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 133(1)(b) is not valid and proper.In the view that we take that the certificate granted by the High Court is not valid and that the appeal brought on such a certificate is not sustainable, we do not express any opinion on the merits, though arguments were heard on the same.42. As the certificate issued by the High Court under Art. 133(1)(b) is not proper and valid, the only course open to us is to revoke the certificate and set aside the order of the High Court granting the same.