GANPAT RAI HIRALAL AND ANOTHER vs AGGARWAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LTD.MURARI LAL HARI RAMV.MARW

The Supreme Court interpreted Section 116 of the Pepsu Ordinance X of 2005, clarifying that it facilitates the transition of proceedings without treating them as newly commenced, thus preserving vested rights. The Court held that the requirement for a certificate for appeals under the Ordinance was applicable only to new proceedings, while appeals governed by the Patiala States Judicature Farman of 1999 retained the right to appeal without a certificate. Consequently, the dismissal of the appeal for lack of a certificate was upheld in Appeal No. 152, but the dismissals in Appeals Nos. 167 and 167-A were deemed erroneous as they were based on an incorrect application of the law regarding vested rights.