Top
Top Stories

First Appellate Court Has To Do More Than Just Quoting Passages From Trial Court Judgment While Dismissing Appeal: SC [Read Judgment]

Ashok K.M
4 Aug 2017 12:55 PM GMT
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

It has to elucidate, analyse and arrive at the conclusion that the appeal is devoid of merit, the bench observed.

While setting aside a judgment of a high court for being devoid of reasoning, the Supreme Court in U Manjunath Rao vs U Chandrashekar, has observed that a first appellate court, while dismissing an appeal, cannot just quote passages from the trial court judgment and thereafter, pen a few lines and express the view that there is no reason to differ with the trial court judgment, but it has to elucidate, analyse and arrive at the conclusion that the appeal is devoid of merit.

A bench, comprising Justice Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar, was hearing an appeal from a judgment by Karnataka High Court wherein it dismissed the first appeal. The apex court bench observed that the high court has only copiously quoted from the judgment of the trial court and held that he did not find any infirmities in the findings recorded by the trial court.

Reason is the life of law

Referring to various decisions on this aspect, the bench observed that absence of analysis not only evinces non-application of mind but mummifies the core spirit of the judgment.  The reason is the life of law. It is that filament that injects soul to the judgment. A Judge has to constantly remind himself that absence of reason in the process of adjudication makes the ultimate decision pregnable, the bench observed.

Mere concurrence does not meet requirement of law

Setting aside the high court judgment and remanding the matter to it, the bench observed that there has to be an “expression of opinion” and mere concurrence does not meet the requirement of law.

Needless to say, it is one thing to state that the appeal is without any substance and it is another thing to elucidate, analyse and arrive at the conclusion that the appeal is devoid of merit, the bench observed.

By no stretch of imagination it can be stated that the first appellate court can quote passages from the trial court judgment and thereafter pen few lines and express the view that there is no reason to differ with the trial court judgment, it added.

Read  the Judgment Here

Next Story