Case Note & Summary
The litigation originated from a commercial dispute over sale proceeds of cotton. The petitioner filed a suit on July 2, 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ajmer against the respondent firm claiming a decree for Rs.10,665 and rendition of accounts for the balance sale proceeds of 104 bales of cotton purchased through the respondent's agency. The petitioner alleged that the bales were sold by the respondent as his agents on May 14, 1948 for Rs.27,267/13/6, and that the respondent delivered a demand draft for Rs.11,000 which was encashed and four cheques aggregating Rs.13,000 which were dishonoured due to lack of arrangement with the respondent's bankers. After giving credit for Rs.4,000 subsequently received, the petitioner claimed Rs.10,665 on the dishonoured cheques with interest, and also sought an account for the balance of the price after deducting commission, dalali, and godown charges. The trial court passed a decree directing that accounts be taken and appointed a Commissioner. The High Court of Rajasthan reversed the decree and dismissed the suit, holding that the transactions related to an unregistered firm and the suit was barred because the firm was not registered. The petitioner then sought a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution to appeal, but the High Court refused. He then moved the Supreme Court by special leave petition under Article 136, contending primarily that the judgment involved a claim or question respecting property of value not less than Rs.20,000 and that he was entitled to a certificate under Article 133(1)(b) as a matter of right. The court considered the distinction between Article 133(1)(a) and (b). It observed that under clause (a), the decisive factor is the amount or value of the subject-matter in the court of first instance and still in dispute in appeal to the Supreme Court; under clause (b), it is the amount or value of the property respecting which a claim or question is involved in the judgment sought to be appealed from. The court held that the expression 'property' includes money, but the property respecting which the claim or question arises must be property in addition to or other than the subject-matter of the dispute. If no claim or question is raised respecting property other than the subject-matter, clause (a) applies; if such property of not less than Rs.20,000 is involved in addition to or other than the subject-matter, clause (b) applies. In the present case, the subject-matter was a claim for money, part definite and part to be ascertained on taking accounts. The court found that the claim in the court of first instance did not reach Rs.20,000, so clause (a) was inapplicable. On the first alternative argument, the court held that the judgment did not involve any claim or question respecting the 104 bales of cotton because the right to sell was admitted and only the right to retain the price was disputed; thus it was not a question respecting property other than the money claim. On the second alternative, the court rejected the contention that adding interest to the Commissioner's reported amount made the claim exceed Rs.20,000, reasoning that this was still the subject-matter in dispute and not property in addition to or other than the subject-matter. The court also found no other ground to grant special leave. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Appeal to Supreme Court - Certificate Requirements - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 133(1)(a), Article 133(1)(b) - The court distinguished conditions under clauses (a) and (b); under clause (a) the amount or value of subject-matter in the court of first instance and still in dispute is decisive, while under clause (b) the amount or value of property respecting which a claim or question is involved in the judgment is decisive, and such property must be in addition to or other than the subject-matter of the dispute. Held that the petitioner could not obtain a certificate under clause (a) because the claim in the court of first instance did not reach Rs.20,000, and could not obtain a certificate under clause (b) because the judgment did not involve any claim or question respecting property other than the money claim which was the subject-matter. (Paras 1-4) B) Civil Law - Agency - Claim Against Agent for Sale Proceeds - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 133(1)(b) - The court held that a judgment dealing with a claim for money due from an agent for price of goods belonging to the principal sold by the agent does not directly or indirectly involve a claim or question respecting the goods sold, since the right of the agent to sell was admitted and only the right to retain the price was disputed. The alternative argument that the claim including interest exceeded Rs.20,000 was rejected because it remained the subject-matter in dispute, not property in addition to or other than the subject-matter. Held that the petition failed and was dismissed with costs. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of the High Court involved a claim or question respecting property of value not less than Rs.20,000 under Article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution, and whether the High Court erred in refusing a certificate; whether the case was otherwise fit for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition with costs, holding that no certificate under Article 133(1)(a) or 133(1)(b) was available, and no other ground for special leave existed.
Law Points
- Under Article 133(1)(a)
- decisive is amount or value of subject-matter in court of first instance and still in dispute in appeal to Supreme Court
- Under Article 133(1)(b)
- decisive is amount or value of property respecting which claim or question is involved in judgment sought to be appealed from
- Expression 'property' includes money
- Property respecting which claim or question arises must be property in addition to or other than the subject-matter of the dispute
- A claim for money due from agent for price of goods sold does not involve claim or question respecting goods sold
