Page 38 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

A114 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

not considered, which if considered, would have led to an opposite
conclusion or where a finding has been arrived at by an appellate
Court by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence, which if it was
omitted, an opposite conclusion was possible, interference by a
High Court in second appeal is proper. Moreover, in Madan Lal v.
Gopi [AIR 1980 SC 1754], Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the tri-
al Court and district Court wholly ignore the weight of preponder-
ating circumstances on the record and allowed their judgments to
be influenced by inconsequential matters. Then, the High Court
would be justified in re-appreciating the evidence and in coming to
its own conclusion. In Damadilal v. Parashram [(1976) 4 SCC 855],
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the finding of a fact arrived at ig-
noring important and relevant evidence is bad in law. A High Court
would be justified in setting aside such finding in second appeal.
• In Vishwanath Sitaram Agarwal v. Sau Sarla Vishwanath Agarwal [AIR
2012 SC 2586], Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that any finding
which is not supported by evidence or inferences is drawn in a
stretched and unacceptable manner can be said to be perverse and
second appeal will lie against such perverse finding. Further, in Ma-
ria Colaco v. Alba F.H. D’ Souza [(2008) 5 SCC 268 (271)], Hon’ble Su-
preme Court held that normally second appeal, the High Court
should not interfere question of fact, but if on the scrutiny of the ev-
idence it is found that the findings recorded by the first appellate
Court is totally perverse then High Court can interfere in the matter
as it constitutes a question of law. Again in, Rajasthan SRTC v. Ba-
jrang Lal [(2014) 4 SCC 693], Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there
is no embargo on High Court to entertain second appeal on ques-
tion of fact in exceptional circumstances where factual findings are
found to be perverse. And, when the finding is vitiated by applica-
tion of wrong test or is based on conjectures, a High Court u/s 100
can interfere with such finding of fact [Budhwanti v. Gulab Chand
Parasad, (1987) 2 SCC 153].
• In K.C. Mathew v. Sulaikha Beevi [(2000) 9 SCC 276], Hon’ble Su-
preme Court observed that a substantial question of law as men-
tioned in Section 100 of CPC means that question which has to be
resolved for deciding the main issue involved in the suit and an-
swer to the same should have a material bearing on the rights of the
parties.
• In Malkait Kaur v. Hardev Singh [AIR 2011 P&H 93 (96)], Hon’ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the appeal admitted with-
out framing substantial question of law is not improper. The Appel-
late Court can formulate question of law as contemplated under
Section 100 of the Code at any point of time BEFORE hearing of ap-
peal, even without amending grounds of appeal.
• In the case of Kannan v. V.S. Pandurangam [AIR 2008 SC 951],
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that order passed in not always liable
to be set aside due to non-formulation of substantial question of
law. Prejudice to party is necessary for order to be set aside.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  38