Second Appeal: Judgment Should Not Be Interfered With By High Court Unless There Is A Substantial Question Of Law, Reiterates Supreme Court

Case: Mallanaguoda vs. Ninganagouda

Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat

Case No: Civil Appeal No. 805 of 2021

Court Observation: “The First Appellate Court is the final Court on facts. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the judgment of the First Appellate Court should not be interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC unless there is a substantial question of law. The High Court committed an error in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and finding fault with the final decree by taking a different view on factual findings recorded by the First Appellate Court.”

[doc id=4378]

Previous Posts

Company Tribunal Not A Labour Court Or Administrative Tribunal To Focus Entirely On Removal Of Director: Supreme Court In Tata-Mistry Case

Arbitration Reference Not Maintainable If Filed After Admission Of Insolvency Resolution Petition U/s 7 IBC

Insolvency Process Maintainable Against Corporate Guarantor Even If Principal Borrower Is Not A ‘Corporate Person’

Statement Made During Enquiry At Pre FIR Stage Neither A Confession Nor A Statement U/s 160 CrPC

Prevention Of Corruption Act- An Enquiry At Pre-FIR Stage Is Not Only Permissible But Desirable

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Substitute Any Commercial Term Of Resolution Plan Approved By Committee Of Creditors

Section 14 Limitation Act Applies To Application Under Section 7 IBC

Delay Can Be Condone Under Section 5 Limitation Act Even In The Absence Of A Formal Application

Supreme Court Bars Charging Compound Interest Or Penal Interest On Any Borrower During Loan Moratorium; Refuses Moratorium Extension

Commercial Courts Act Does Not Exclude Application Of Section 5 Limitation Act