9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "judgment" in Article 133(1) of the Constitution for the purpose of granting certificates for appeal to the Supreme Court. Analysis: The case involved a dispute where the plaintiffs sought an interim injunction against the Bank of India Ltd. regarding a letter of credit opened in favor of a third party. The High Court of Madras initially granted the injunction, but it was later set aside in appeals under the Letters Patent. The plaintiffs then applied for a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) and 133(1)(b) of the Constitution to appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court granted the certificate, but the Supreme Court revoked it, emphasizing that an order granting an interim injunction is not considered a final order for the purpose of appeal certification. The Supreme Court clarified that a judgment or decree must involve a final adjudication by the court on the rights of the parties, and an interlocutory order, even if deciding an issue, does not qualify as a judgment. Various legal precedents were cited to support this interpretation, highlighting that a final order must dispose of the rights of the parties in dispute in a suit or proceeding. The Supreme Court referred to past cases such as Ramchand Manjimal v. Goverdhandas Vishindas RatanChand and Abdul Rahman v. D.K. Cassim & Sons to illustrate the concept of a final order as one that conclusively determines the rights of the parties in relation to the entire suit. The Court also cited S. Kuppusami Rao v. The King and Mohammad Amin Brothers Ltd. and others v. Dominion India and others to emphasize that finality is determined by whether the order conclusively disposes of the rights of the parties in dispute. The judgment further discussed the applicability of recent cases like Mohanlal Maganlal Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, clarifying that the finality of an order is not dependent on the resolution of the entire controversy but on the conclusive disposition of the specific issue at hand. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that an order refusing to grant an interim injunction, like in the present case, does not qualify as a final order under Article 133(1) of the Constitution. The Court reaffirmed the principle that for an order to be considered final, it must conclusively determine the rights and obligations of the parties in the suit or proceeding. As a result, the certificate granted by the High Court for appeal to the Supreme Court was revoked, and the plaintiffs were directed to pay the costs of the petitioners of the application for revocation of the certificate.
|
