Article 133, The Constitution Of India

133. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to
civil matters
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in
a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies
under Article 134A
(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and
(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the
Supreme Court
(2) Notwithstanding anything in Article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme Court
under clause ( 1 ) may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution has been wrongly decided
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law
otherwise provides, lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of
one Judge of a High Court.

96. Appeal from original decree.- (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this
Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by
any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of
such court.

109. When appeals lie to the Supreme Court.- Subject to the provisions in Chapter IV of Part V of
the Constitution and such rules as may, from time to time, be made by the Supreme Court regarding
appeals from the Courts of India, and to the provisions hereinafter contained, an appeal shall lie to the
Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court, if the
High Court certifies

(i) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and

(ii) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.

PART-II APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ORDER XVI

HEARING OF APPEALSX

Bengal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, AIR 1971 Cal

357
ropes/reels provided - not non-rotating type despite express mention - for use in cranes

Bristol Tramways Co. v. Fiat Motors Ltd., [1910] 2 KB 831 (CA)

Coram: Cozens-Hardy, LJ MR, Farwell LJ

The plaintiff complained after the purchase of a Fiat Omnibus chassis for

the road, to be used for the conveyance of passengers around Bristol, in

heavy and hilly traffic conditions. The chassis proved unfit for this purpose

on account of breaking-down too often.

Held: There was an implied condition that the omnibus should be reasonably

fit for the declared purpose.

Eternit Everest Ltd. v. CV Abraham, AIR 2003 Ker 273

leakage from asbestos sheet - manufacturing defect - implied warranty by trade or usage

Sumner Permain & Co. v. Webb & Co., [1922] 1 KB 55 (CA)

Facts:

D sold tonic FOB to P. D knew the tonic was for P to carry on business. Ds
tonic contained an acid that was illegal in the country of P. P cannot know
legally sell the tonic.

Ratio:
If the reason one cannot sell the goods is simply a legal regulation, then the
goods are still merchantable. Merchantable quality makes no claim with
respect to legal title. The meaning is restricted to whether the goods match
the contract.

Analysis:
Merchantable quality does not cover legal title to goods or the right to sell
them.
* Merchantable quality means that the goods comply w/ the description in the
K doesnt mean that there must be a person there ready to buy the goods
(that there be a legal buyer or re-seller of goods).
* The word saleable does not mean legally saleable.
The meaning is more restricted in terms of determining whether or not the
goods match the terms of the contract. Merchantable quality means the goods
constitute good tender, does not require that the buyer like the goods.

Forasol vs Oil & Natural Gas Commission, AIR 1984 SC 241

Precedents-English decisions not binding but have high pursuasive value.

The English decisions are of Courts of a country from which we have
derived our jurisprudence and a large part of our laws and in
which the judgments were delivered by judges held in high repute.
Undoubtedly, none of these decisions are binding upon this Court but they
are authorities of high pursuasive value to which we may
legitimately turn for assistance. Whether the rule laid down in any of
these cases can be applied by our Courts must, however, be judged in
the context of our own laws and legal procedure and the practical
realities of litigation in our country.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Decided On: 15.04.1980

Appellants: Consolidated Coffee Ltd. and Anr.

Vs.
Respondent: Coffee Board, Bangalore

It is well known that our Sale of Goods Act 1930 is based upon and is largely a
reproduction of the English Sale of Goods Act 1893 and in principle as well as in most
details the law of sale of goods in both the countries is now the same and, therefore,
English authorities on interpretation of different sections, although not technically
binding in India, would have great persuasive value. It will be pertinent to observe
that our Section 64 is based upon Section 58 of the English Act, though it is somewhat
differently arranged; but Sub-section (2) of Section 64 is particularly in identical terms
as Section 58(2) of the English Act.

Section 64(2) of our Sale of Goods Act, being in pan materia with Section 58(2) of the
English Sale of Goods Act 1893, will have to be interpreted in the same manner and we
are therefore, of the view that it does not deal with the question of passing of the
property at auction sale but merely deals with completion of the contract of sale which
takes place at the fall of the hammer or at the announcement of the close of the sale in
other customary manner by the auctioneer.