Section 100. Second appeal.
In State
Bank of India & Ors. V. S.N. Goyal, AIR 2008 SC 2594, the Supreme Court explained
the terms “substantial question of law” and observed as under : “The word ‘substantial’
prefixed to ‘question of law’ does not refer to the stakes involved in the
case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but
refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis
between the parties. ‘Substantial questions of law’ means not only substantial
questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law
arising in a case as between the parties.……..... any question of law which
affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as
between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or
collaterally, having no bearing on the final outcome, will not be a substantial
question of law. Where there is a clear and settled enunciation on a question
of law, by the apex Court or by the High Court concerned, it cannot be said
that the case involves a substantial question of law. It is said that a
substantial question of law arises when a question of law, which is not finally
settled by the apex Court (or by the High Court concerned so far as the State
is concerned), arises for consideration in the case. But this statement has to
be understood in the correct perspective. Where there is a clear enunciation of
law and the lower court has followed or rightly applied such clear enunciation
of law, obviously the case will not be considered as giving rise to a
substantial question of law, even if the question of law may be one of general importance.
On the other hand, if there is a clear enunciation of law by the apex Court (or
by the High Court concerned), but the lower court had ignored or misinterpreted
or misapplied the same, and correct application of the law as declared or
enunciated by the apex Court (or the High Court concerned) would have led to a different
decision, the appeal would involve a substantial question of law as between the
parties. Even where there is an enunciation of law by the apex Court (or the
High Court concerned) and the same has been followed by the lower court, if the
appellant is able to persuade the High Court that the enunciated legal position
needs reconsideration, alteration, modification or clarification or that there
is a need to resolve an apparent conflict between two viewpoints, it can be
said that a substantial question of law arises for consideration. There cannot,
therefore, be a straitjacket definition as to when a substantial question of
law arises in a case.”
