Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/judicial-interpretation-of-substantial-questionable-law-administrative-law-essay.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:21:52+00:00

Document:
Though the expression “substantial question of law” has not been defined in any of the Act or in any of the statutes where this expression appears, e.g., section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The true meaning and connotation of this expression is now well settled by various judicial pronouncements. It was observed by the Supreme Court in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., that “a question of law would be a substantial question of law if it directly or indirectly affects the rights of parties and/or there is some doubt or difference of opinion on the issue”. But “if the question is settled by the Apex Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well-settled, mere application of it to a particular set of facts would not constitute a substantial question of law” – Krishna Kumar Aggarwal v. Assessing Officer.
Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, If the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.
In an appeal under this Section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
Here dissimilarity between question of law and substantial question of law be required to understood i.e. what can be the subject matter of an appeal under Section 100 can only be a substantial question of law. It should involve a matter of general public importance or affect the rights of the parties substantially. Where the determination of the issue depended upon the appreciation of evidence or materials resulting in ascertainment of basic facts without application of any principle of law, the issue merely raises a question of fact. Court observed in Mahavir Woollen Mills v. CIT A question of fact becomes a question of law, if the finding is either without any evidence or material, or if the finding is contrary to the evidence, or is perverse or there is no direct nexus between the conclusion of fact and the primary fact upon which that conclusion is based. But, it is not possible to turn a mere question of fact into a question of law by asking whether as a matter of law the authority came to a correct conclusion upon a matter of fact. In Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v CIT the apex Court has held that where the determination of an issue depends upon the appreciation of evidence or materials resulting in ascertainment of basic facts without application of any principle of law, the issue raises a mere question of fact.
As the Tribunal is the ultimate fact-finding authority, if it has reached certain findings upon examination of all relevant evidence and materials before it, the existence or otherwise of certain facts at issue is a question of fact.
Any inference from certain facts is also a question of fact. If a finding of fact is arrived at by the Tribunal after improperly rejecting evidence, a question of law can arise.
While the Tribunal acts on materials partly relevant and partly irrelevant, it can give rise to a question of law if it is impossible to say to what extent the irrelevant material was used to arrive at the finding. Such a finding is vitiated because of the use of inadmissible material.
Where any finding is based on no evidence or material, it involves a question of law.
Second appeals can arise before the High Courts only on substantial question of law as certified by the courts. The Supreme Court had regretted that in a number of cases, no efforts were being made to differentiate between the “question of law” and “substantial question of law”. A right of appeal is neither natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is a substantive statutory right to be regulated in accordance with law.
A question of law will be a substantial of law if it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties. In order to be “substantial” it must be such that there may be some doubt or difference of opinion or there is room for difference of opinion. If the law is well-settled by the Supreme Court, the mere application of it to particular facts would not constitute a substantial question of law (M/s Neek Ram Sharma & Co. vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and others).
The Delhi High Court pointed out that the term “substantial question of law” has not been defined. But it has acquired a definite connotation through a catena of judicial pronouncements.
It calls for a discussion for alternative view.
The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd, the question would not be a substantial question of law (Sir Chunilal V Mehta & Sons Ltd v Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co Ltd).
The Delhi High Court quoted Lord Simonds to point out that even a pure finding of fact may be set aside by the court if it appears that the Commissioner had acted without any evidence or on a view of the facts which could not be reasonably entertained. The court may also intervene if it appears that no person acting judicially, and properly instructed as to the relevant law, could have come to the determination under appeal.
The position has been reiterated in Kanahaiyalal and Ors. v. Anupkumar and Ors. (2003 (1) SCC 430) and Ram Sakhi Devi (Smt.) v. Chhatra Devi and Others (2005 (6) SCC 181).
"Judicial Interpretation of Substantial Questionable Law." LawTeacher.net. 11 2013. All Answers Ltd. 04 2019 <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/judicial-interpretation-of-substantial-questionable-law-administrative-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
"Judicial Interpretation of Substantial Questionable Law." LawTeacher. LawTeacher.net, November 2013. Web. 21 April 2019. <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/judicial-interpretation-of-substantial-questionable-law-administrative-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
LawTeacher. November 2013. Judicial Interpretation of Substantial Questionable Law. [online]. Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/judicial-interpretation-of-substantial-questionable-law-administrative-law-essay.php?vref=1 [Accessed 21 April 2019].
LawTeacher. Judicial Interpretation of Substantial Questionable Law [Internet]. November 2013. [Accessed 21 April 2019]; Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/judicial-interpretation-of-substantial-questionable-law-administrative-law-essay.php?vref=1.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.