ABDUL RAHEEM versus THE KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.

ABDUL RAHEEM versus THE KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.

The High Court failed to formulate substantial questions of law as required under Section 100 CPC; because respondent No.1 had already parted with a substantial portion of the consideration and paid conversion charges, the matter is remitted to the High Court for framing proper substantial questions of law and fresh consideration.

Parties
Appellant: Abdul Raheem; Respondent No.1: Karnataka Electricity Board; Respondent No.2: Another Respondent
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (second Appeal) Remanded to High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of High Court set aside; matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration upon formulation of substantial questions of law.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Contract Law, Civil Procedure, Appellate Review
Civil Law Specific Performance Contract Law Civil Procedure Appellate Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Raheem

Appellant

Karnataka Electricity Board

Respondent No.1

Another Respondent

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (second Appeal) Remanded to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code by interfering with concurrent findings of fact
  2. 2 Whether consideration of irrelevant facts or non-consideration of relevant facts gives rise to a substantial question of law
  3. 3 Whether the failure of the High Court to formulate substantial questions of law vitiates its judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court failed to formulate substantial questions of law as required under Section 100 CPC; because respondent No.1 had already parted with a substantial portion of the consideration and paid conversion charges, the matter is remitted to the High Court for framing proper substantial questions of law and fresh consideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of High Court set aside; matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration upon formulation of substantial questions of law.

Orders

  • The impugned judgment is set aside.
  • Matter remitted back to the High Court for consideration afresh upon formulation of substantial questions of law.