1962 (3) TMI 77 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the question of construction to be Placed upon a decree was a substantial question of law?

Held that:- The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. Applying the tests it would be clear that the question involved in this appeal, that is, the construction of the Managing Agency agreement is not only one of law but also it is neither simple nor free from doubt.

As rightly-pointed out by the High Court, were intended only to emphasise the fact that compensation will be computable at an amount not less than ₹ 6,000 p.m. Apparently, they thought it desirable to emphasise the point that the amount of ₹ 6,000 p.m. was regarded by' them as reasonable and intended that it should not be reduced by the court in its discretion.

When the remuneration and salary were equated in el. 12 nothing else was meant but ₹ 6,000/-and when the word salary was used in el. 14 we have no doubt that only that amount was meant and no other. It may be that under el. 10 the appellant was entitled to additional remuneration in case the profits were high upto a limit of 10% of the gross profits. That was a right to claim something over and above ₹ 6,000/-and could be characterized properly as additional remuneration and not fixed or normal remuneration which alone was apparently in the minds of the parties when they drew up el. 14. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court was right in the construction placed by it upon the clause. Appeal dismissed.