# CHANDER BHAN GOSAIN v. ST ATE OF ORISSA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1964] 2 S.C.R. 885
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-03-28
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE JumsDICTION: Civil Misc. Petition No. 1398 of 1962
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chander-bhan-gosain-v-st-ate-of-orissa-ors-2851
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
to refer to the High Court the question of law raised
in this appeal was alsc1 rejected by the High Court.
It is, therefore, said that this appeal is concluded by
the order of the High Court last mentioned.
But it
appears that this Court had granted leave to appeal
from the High Court's order refusing to issue the writ
before the appeal to the tribunal had been dismissed.
The appellant could have appealed from the High
Court's order refusing to direct a reference of the
question but he chose to prosecute the appeal against
the order in the petition for the writ which wou Id
have given him the same relief. Either remedy was
open to him and neither can be said in the circumstances to be barred by the other.
The appeal however fails on the merits and it
is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
CHANDER BHAN GOSAIN
v.
ST ATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
(S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR and M. HrnAYATULLAHJJ.)
Buprtm•
Court
Practict-Appwl-Court
Fee-One
petition fika under Art. 226 to challang• many assessmtnl
oraera-Appeal again1t one order of High Court-Court Jee
payahlt.
This appeal was against the order of the Deputy Registrar
directing the present case to be registered as nine appeals and
requiring the appellant to pay nine sets of court fees.
The
case originated out of one petition under
Art. 226 of the
Constition challenging the validity of various assessment orders.
The High Court passed one order on the petition and one
appeal was filed in this Court.
C. B. Gosain
••
St.if!!o/ Orissa
8rJrkt1r J,
196J
A;ril 5
s.t. J.
'
1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] voL.
B•l<l that the appellant should pay only one set of court
fee and other charges as in a single appeal. It could not be
said that there were as many proceedings as there were asse;sment orders as the appellant had by a single petition challenged
them all together;
Lajwanli Sial's ca.!t, Petition for spf.cial leave No. 673
of 1959 and KishiKChand Ch<llaram'• case, C.A. Nos. 462 to
465 of 1960, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JumsDICTION: Civil Misc.
Petition No. 1398 of 1962.
Appeal against the order of the
Deputy
Registrar dated March 28, 1962 in Civil Appeals
Nos. 41 to 49 of 1962.
A. Ranganadham Chetty, B.D. Dhawan, S.K.
Mehta and K.L .. Mehta, for the petitioner.
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India,
R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, for
the
re1pondents.
1963. April 5.
The Order of the court was
delivered by
SARJURj.-This is an appeal against the order
of the Deputy Registrar directmg the present case to
be
rc~istered as nine appeals and requiring the
appellant to pay nine sets of court-fees. The Deputy
Registrar had relied on two cases of this Court,
namely, Laju;anti Sial's case (Petition for Special
Leave No. 673of1959) and Kishinchand Chellaram's
t:aBe (Civil Appeals No. 462 to 465 of 1960). We
do not think that these precedents cover the present
case.
In Lajwanti's case there were a number of
applications under s. 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act
(or reference of the same question.
There were in
fact a number of separate references but they were
..
•
-
2 s.c.R..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
887
dealt with by one judgment from which the appeal
to this Court arose.
That was really a case of five
appeals for the common judgment must be taken
to have been delivered in each of the di:!!erent
reference cases.
Kishinchand Ghellaram's case is also not helpful
because there four applications by four different
assessees had been · made for
reference of three
identical questions arising in each assessment case
under s. 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act.
Though
it appears that there was one order of reference to
the High Court and the High Court treated the case
as a single case of reference, it could be said that
there were in fact a number of references.
The present case however originated out of
one petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution
challenging the validity of various assessment orders.
Obviously here, there was only one proceeding. It
could not be said that ther

## Text

2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
to refer to the High Court the question of law raised
in this appeal was alsc1 rejected by the High Court.
It is, therefore, said that this appeal is concluded by
the order of the High Court last mentioned.
But it
appears that this Court had granted leave to appeal
from the High Court's order refusing to issue the writ
before the appeal to the tribunal had been dismissed.
The appellant could have appealed from the High
Court's order refusing to direct a reference of the
question but he chose to prosecute the appeal against
the order in the petition for the writ which wou Id
have given him the same relief. Either remedy was
open to him and neither can be said in the circumstances to be barred by the other.
The appeal however fails on the merits and it
is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
CHANDER BHAN GOSAIN
v.
ST ATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
(S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR and M. HrnAYATULLAHJJ.)
Buprtm•
Court
Practict-Appwl-Court
Fee-One
petition fika under Art. 226 to challang• many assessmtnl
oraera-Appeal again1t one order of High Court-Court Jee
payahlt.
This appeal was against the order of the Deputy Registrar
directing the present case to be registered as nine appeals and
requiring the appellant to pay nine sets of court fees.
The
case originated out of one petition under
Art. 226 of the
Constition challenging the validity of various assessment orders.
The High Court passed one order on the petition and one
appeal was filed in this Court.
C. B. Gosain
••
St.if!!o/ Orissa
8rJrkt1r J,
196J
A;ril 5
s.t. J.
'
1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] voL.
B•l<l that the appellant should pay only one set of court
fee and other charges as in a single appeal. It could not be
said that there were as many proceedings as there were asse;sment orders as the appellant had by a single petition challenged
them all together;
Lajwanli Sial's ca.!t, Petition for spf.cial leave No. 673
of 1959 and KishiKChand Ch<llaram'• case, C.A. Nos. 462 to
465 of 1960, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JumsDICTION: Civil Misc.
Petition No. 1398 of 1962.
Appeal against the order of the
Deputy
Registrar dated March 28, 1962 in Civil Appeals
Nos. 41 to 49 of 1962.
A. Ranganadham Chetty, B.D. Dhawan, S.K.
Mehta and K.L .. Mehta, for the petitioner.
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India,
R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, for
the
re1pondents.
1963. April 5.
The Order of the court was
delivered by
SARJURj.-This is an appeal against the order
of the Deputy Registrar directmg the present case to
be
rc~istered as nine appeals and requiring the
appellant to pay nine sets of court-fees. The Deputy
Registrar had relied on two cases of this Court,
namely, Laju;anti Sial's case (Petition for Special
Leave No. 673of1959) and Kishinchand Chellaram's
t:aBe (Civil Appeals No. 462 to 465 of 1960). We
do not think that these precedents cover the present
case.
In Lajwanti's case there were a number of
applications under s. 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act
(or reference of the same question.
There were in
fact a number of separate references but they were
..
•
-
2 s.c.R..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
887
dealt with by one judgment from which the appeal
to this Court arose.
That was really a case of five
appeals for the common judgment must be taken
to have been delivered in each of the di:!!erent
reference cases.
Kishinchand Ghellaram's case is also not helpful
because there four applications by four different
assessees had been · made for
reference of three
identical questions arising in each assessment case
under s. 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act.
Though
it appears that there was one order of reference to
the High Court and the High Court treated the case
as a single case of reference, it could be said that
there were in fact a number of references.
The present case however originated out of
one petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution
challenging the validity of various assessment orders.
Obviously here, there was only one proceeding. It
could not be said that there were as many proceedings
as there were assessment orders for the petitioner had
by a single petition callenged them all together.
When an appeal is taken to this Court from the
judgment of the High Court in such a petition, it is
impossible to contend that· there are more agpeals
than one. Therefore, the appellant before us is liable
only to pay one set of court-fee and other charges as
in a single appeal.
Action may be taken accordingly
by the office, if necessary, by refunding the excess
char~es made.
1963
Chander Blllltt Co.raitt
v.
Stale of Orissa
&u!aJr /.