The High Court says my appeal raises no substantial question of law because the principles are settled and only their application is in dispute. What actually makes a question of law substantial?
The test the Supreme Court laid down is whether the question is of general public importance, or directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties, and if so whether it is an open question in the sense that it has not been finally settled by the Supreme Court, the Privy Council or the Federal Court, or is not free from difficulty, or calls for discussion of alternative views. A question settled by the highest court, or one where settled general principles have merely to be applied, or a plea that is palpably absurd, is not substantial. This is a contract case, not a tax case.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - B.P. Sinha, CJ, J.L. Kapur, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah and J.R. Mudholkar, JJ (judgment delivered by Mudholkar, J)) on 1962-03-05, reported as 1962 AIR 1314; 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 549. It bears on section 133(1) of the Constitution of India, section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, section 260A, section 261 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals matters.
This is the definition of a substantial question of law that every appeal to a High Court against a Tribunal's order is measured against. Its value lies in what it rejects on both sides. The Bombay view, that the court must itself entertain a doubt about the principle of law, is too narrow. The Nagpur view in Dinkarrao, that a question is substantial whenever the decision turns on it, is too wide - it would make even a palpably absurd plea substantial. The Court adopted the Madras formulation in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao. It also confirms the point that gets many appeals admitted: the construction of a document which is the foundation of the rights of the parties necessarily raises a question of law, and where that construction is neither simple nor free from doubt it is a substantial one.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Chunilal Mehta & Co. were appointed managing agents of the respondent company for 21 years by an agreement of 15 June 1933, and in October 1945 the company permitted the benefit of the agreement to be assigned to the appellant. Clause 10 provided for remuneration of Rs 6,000 a month, topped up at the year end if the total received fell short of ten per cent of gross profits; clause 12 provided that the monthly remuneration or salary accrued from day to day and was payable in the succeeding month; clause 14 provided that if the firm were deprived of the agency otherwise than for the causes specified in clause 15, it would receive as compensation or liquidated damages a sum equal to the aggregate of the monthly salary of not less than Rs 6,000 which it would have received for the whole of the unexpired part of the 21 years. On 23 April 1951 the board terminated the agreement and removed the appellant. The appellant sued in the Bombay High Court for Rs 50 lakhs, later amended to Rs 28,26,804. The company admitted the termination was wrongful, so only quantum was in issue. The single judge awarded Rs 2,34,000, computed at Rs 6,000 a month for the unexpired period, with interest, and the appellate bench affirmed. The High Court refused a certificate under article 133(1)(a), apparently following its earlier decision in Kaikhushroo Pirojsha Ghaira, on the footing that the question of construction, though one of law, was not substantial. The appellant obtained special leave and asked this Court to decide the certificate question as well.
The Court held the appellant was entitled to the certificate as of right, but affirmed the High Court's decree and dismissed the appeal with costs. The proper test of substantiality is whether the question is of general public importance or directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties, and if so whether it is an open question in the sense of not being finally settled by this Court, the Privy Council or the Federal Court, or is not free from difficulty, or calls for discussion of alternative views; a question settled by the highest court, or where settled general principles must merely be applied, or a palpably absurd plea, is not substantial. The construction of a document of title or of a document which is the foundation of the parties' rights necessarily raises a question of law, and here it was neither simple nor free from doubt, with nearly Rs 26 lakhs turning on it. On the merits, clause 14 fixed the precise damages payable, and where parties name a sum as liquidated damages they must be deemed to exclude the right to claim an unascertained sum. The words 'not less than' were meant only to emphasise that compensation was computable at not less than Rs 6,000 a month and should not be reduced in the court's discretion. Salary in clause 14 meant that fixed sum; the share of gross profits was additional remuneration, and could not accrue from day to day since profits are known only at the year end.
On the certificate question the Court traced the authorities. The Privy Council in Raghunath Prasad Singh had rejected the old Oudh view that substantial meant of general importance, holding it meant substantial as between the parties in the case. The Bombay High Court, in the decision the High Court here followed, had said that applying a well established principle to a given set of facts is not substantial, and that the court must have some doubt about the principle involved - a test the Supreme Court found too narrow, giving insufficient weight to the effect on the parties' rights and making the court's own doubt decisive. The Nagpur High Court in Dinkarrao had gone the other way, holding a question substantial whenever the decision turned on it, however unimportant to others; the Court thought some of Bose CJ's observations too wide, since they would treat a question as substantial even where the principles are well defined and no reasonable divergence is possible. The Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao had rejected that test because it would make even a palpably absurd plea substantial, and had held instead that a question fairly arguable, or admitting room for difference of opinion, or calling for discussion of alternative views, is substantial. The Court agreed in general with the Madras view and framed its own test accordingly. On the merits it read clauses 10, 12 and 14 together, and rejected the alternative argument that clause 14 left the general law right to damages alive: by providing for compensation in express terms that right is necessarily excluded, and had the parties intended otherwise there would have been no need for the clause at all.
The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would ... be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppThe test the Supreme Court laid down is whether the question is of general public importance, or directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties, and if so whether it is an open question in the sense that it has not been finally settled by the Supreme Court, the Privy Council or the Federal Court, or is not free from difficulty, or calls for discussion of alternative views. A question settled by the highest court, or one where settled general principles have merely to be applied, or a plea that is palpably absurd, is not substantial. This is a contract case, not a tax case. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - B.P. Sinha, CJ, J.L. Kapur, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah and J.R. Mudholkar, JJ (judgment delivered by Mudholkar, J)) and bears on section 133(1) of the Constitution of India, section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, section 260A, section 261 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as 1962 AIR 1314; 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 549. This is the definition of a substantial question of law that every appeal to a High Court against a Tribunal's order is measured against. Its value lies in what it rejects on both sides. The Bombay view, that the court must itself entertain a doubt about the principle of law, is too narrow. The Nagpur view in Dinkarrao, that a question is substantial whenever the decision turns on it, is too wide - it would make even a palpably absurd plea substantial. The Court adopted the Madras formulation in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao. It also confirms the point that gets many appeals admitted: the construction of a document which is the foundation of the rights of the parties necessarily raises a question of law, and where that construction is neither simple nor free from doubt it is a substantial one. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Frame the proposed question so that it shows either general importance or a direct and substantial effect on your rights, and then show it is open, difficult, or calls for a choice between views.
Chunilal Mehta & Co. were appointed managing agents of the respondent company for 21 years by an agreement of 15 June 1933, and in October 1945 the company permitted the benefit of the agreement to be assigned to the appellant. Clause 10 provided for remuneration of Rs 6,000 a month, topped up at the year end if the total received fell short of ten per cent of gross profits; clause 12 provided that the monthly remuneration or salary accrued from day to day and was payable in the succeeding month; clause 14 provided that if the firm were deprived of the agency otherwise than for the causes specified in clause 15, it would receive as compensation or liquidated damages a sum equal to the aggregate of the monthly salary of not less than Rs 6,000 which it would have received for the whole of the unexpired part of the 21 years. On 23 April 1951 the board terminated the agreement and removed the appellant. The appellant sued in the Bombay High Court for Rs 50 lakhs, later amended to Rs 28,26,804. The company admitted the termination was wrongful, so only quantum was in issue. The single judge awarded Rs 2,34,000, computed at Rs 6,000 a month for the unexpired period, with interest, and the appellate bench affirmed. The High Court refused a certificate under article 133(1)(a), apparently following its earlier decision in Kaikhushroo Pirojsha Ghaira, on the footing that the question of construction, though one of law, was not substantial. The appellant obtained special leave and asked this Court to decide the certificate question as well. The matter was decided on 1962-03-05 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - B.P. Sinha, CJ, J.L. Kapur, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah and J.R. Mudholkar, JJ (judgment delivered by Mudholkar, J)). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The Court held the appellant was entitled to the certificate as of right, but affirmed the High Court's decree and dismissed the appeal with costs. The proper test of substantiality is whether the question is of general public importance or directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties, and if so whether it is an open question in the sense of not being finally settled by this Court, the Privy Council or the Federal Court, or is not free from difficulty, or calls for discussion of alternative views; a question settled by the highest court, or where settled general principles must merely be applied, or a palpably absurd plea, is not substantial. The construction of a document of title or of a document which is the foundation of the parties' rights necessarily raises a question of law, and here it was neither simple nor free from doubt, with nearly Rs 26 lakhs turning on it. On the merits, clause 14 fixed the precise damages payable, and where parties name a sum as liquidated damages they must be deemed to exclude the right to claim an unascertained sum. The words 'not less than' were meant only to emphasise that compensation was computable at not less than Rs 6,000 a month and should not be reduced in the court's discretion. Salary in clause 14 meant that fixed sum; the share of gross profits was additional remuneration, and could not accrue from day to day since profits are known only at the year end.
On the certificate question the Court traced the authorities. The Privy Council in Raghunath Prasad Singh had rejected the old Oudh view that substantial meant of general importance, holding it meant substantial as between the parties in the case. The Bombay High Court, in the decision the High Court here followed, had said that applying a well established principle to a given set of facts is not substantial, and that the court must have some doubt about the principle involved - a test the Supreme Court found too narrow, giving insufficient weight to the effect on the parties' rights and making the court's own doubt decisive. The Nagpur High Court in Dinkarrao had gone the other way, holding a question substantial whenever the decision turned on it, however unimportant to others; the Court thought some of Bose CJ's observations too wide, since they would treat a question as substantial even where the principles are well defined and no reasonable divergence is possible. The Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao had rejected that test because it would make even a palpably absurd plea substantial, and had held instead that a question fairly arguable, or admitting room for difference of opinion, or calling for discussion of alternative views, is substantial. The Court agreed in general with the Madras view and framed its own test accordingly. On the merits it read clauses 10, 12 and 14 together, and rejected the alternative argument that clause 14 left the general law right to damages alive: by providing for compensation in express terms that right is necessarily excluded, and had the parties intended otherwise there would have been no need for the clause at all. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would ... be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties"
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 1962-03-05 and is reported as 1962 AIR 1314; 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 549. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 133(1) of the Constitution of India, section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, section 260A, section 261, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. The Court held the appellant was entitled to the certificate as of right, but affirmed the High Court's decree and dismissed the appeal with costs. The proper test of substantiality is whether the question is of general public importance or directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties, and if so whether it is an open question in the sense of not being finally settled by this Court, the Privy Council or the Federal Court, or is not free from difficulty, or calls for discussion of alternative views; a question settled by the highest court, or where settled general principles must merely be applied, or a palpably absurd plea, is not substantial. The construction of a document of title or of a document which is the foundation of the parties' rights necessarily raises a question of law, and here it was neither simple nor free from doubt, with nearly Rs 26 lakhs turning on it. On the merits, clause 14 fixed the precise damages payable, and where parties name a sum as liquidated damages they must be deemed to exclude the right to claim an unascertained sum. The words 'not less than' were meant only to emphasise that compensation was computable at not less than Rs 6,000 a month and should not be reduced in the court's discretion. Salary in clause 14 meant that fixed sum; the share of gross profits was additional remuneration, and could not accrue from day to day since profits are known only at the year end. It arises in Appeals matters, on section 133(1) of the Constitution of India, section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, section 260A, section 261 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India - B.P. Sinha, CJ, J.L. Kapur, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah and J.R. Mudholkar, JJ (judgment delivered by Mudholkar, J). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Where the appeal turns on construing a document, say so - construction of a document that founds the parties' rights is a question of law, and complexity is not a bar. Expect to lose the point if the question is covered by a decision of the highest court, or if settled principles merely have to be applied to your facts. Remember this is a Constitution case about appellate certificates and a contract dispute on the merits; the substantiality test travels, the rest of the judgment does not.
Still good law. The standard test for a substantial question of law; the harvested page records it as followed in 1963 and referred to in 1979 by this Court, and as cited in several hundred decisions. No later decision doubting it was read as part of this exercise. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
This is not an income-tax decision. It is a civil appeal arising out of a managing agency contract, and the substantiality test is laid down under article 133(1) of the Constitution and section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the merits turning on sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act. The batch line's sections 260A and 261 of the Income-tax Act are where a practitioner uses the test today; neither was before the Court, and section 260A did not then exist. The Court decided the certificate question because the parties asked it to, having already granted special leave, so nothing turned on it in the result. It also expressly assumed, rather than decided, that Bose CJ had not meant to treat a palpably absurd plea as substantial. The page's headnote misprints the constitutional provision as article 13(1); the headnote has in any event been ignored. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Court held the appellant was entitled to the certificate as of right, but affirmed the High Court's decree and dismissed the appeal with costs. The proper test of substantiality is whether the question is of general public importance or directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties, and if so whether it is an open question in the sense of not being finally settled by this Court, the Privy Council or the Federal Court, or is not free from difficulty, or calls for discussion of alternative views; a question settled by the highest court, or where settled general principles must merely be applied, or a palpably absurd plea, is not substantial. The construction of a document of title or of a document which is the foundation of the parties' rights necessarily raises a question of law, and here it was neither simple nor free from doubt, with nearly Rs 26 lakhs turning on it. On the merits, clause 14 fixed the precise damages payable, and where parties name a sum as liquidated damages they must be deemed to exclude the right to claim an unascertained sum. The words 'not less than' were meant only to emphasise that compensation was computable at not less than Rs 6,000 a month and should not be reduced in the court's discretion. Salary in clause 14 meant that fixed sum; the share of gross profits was additional remuneration, and could not accrue from day to day since profits are known only at the year end.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
You gave particulars, paid by cheque and got a confirmation. Has the burden shifted?
The Tribunal recalled its whole order on my miscellaneous application. Will that recall survive?
We run a shopping mall. Is the income business income or income from house property?
A court order delayed my sale deed. Does my s.54 exemption run from the agreement to sell?