9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (11) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant in the suit from taking any steps in pursuance of a letter of credit opened in favour of M/s. V/O Tractors Export, Moscow, the second defendant. Ramamurthi, J., by order dated April 12, 1968, granted an interim injunction restraining encashment of the letters of credit pending disposal of the suit. In appeals under the Letters Patent preferred by the second defendant,. the High Court of Madras set aside that order. Against the orders passed in the two appeals, the plaintiffs applied for certificate under Arts.133(1)(a) and 133(1)(b) of the Constitution. The High Court observed that an order granting interim injunction is a final order, as far as this Court is concerned, determining the rights of parties within this lit or proceeding, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Court of the rights of the parties, 'and that an interlocutory judgment even if it decides an issue or issues without finally determining the rights and liabilities of the parties is not a judgment, however cardinal the issue may be. In the present case not even an issue has been decided, and it is not contended that the order of the High Court amounts to a judgment or 'a decree. The expression final order it has been held by a long course of authorities, occurring in s. 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, s. 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Art. 133(1) of the Constitution means a final decision on the rights of the parties in dispute in a suit or proceeding; if the rights of the parties in dispute in the suit or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal it was held by the High Court of Calcutta that the cause of action was personal to the insolvents and did not vest in the assignee, and accordingly they set aside the decree and remanded the suit for trial. Against that order an appeal was preferred to the Judicial Committee which was held not maintainable. In 8. Kuppusami Rao v. The King(2) The Federal Court held that the expression final order in s. 205 (1 ) of the Government of India Act, 1935, means an order which finally determines the points in dispute and brings the case to an end. The test of finality, according to the court, is whether the order finally disposes of the rights of the parties, and not whether the order decides an important point or even a vital issue in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endency of the suit them Bombay Prevention of Ex-communication Act 42 of 1949 was enacted and one of the issues raised in the suit was whether the order of ex-communication was invalid. This issue was tried as a preliminary issue and as it raised the question of the vires of the Bombay prevention 'of Ex- communication Act, 1949, the State of Bombay was impleaded as a party-defendant in the suit. The trial court decided the issue against the appellant and the order was confirmed in appeal by the High Court of Bombay. Against the order deciding the issue, an appeal was preferred to this Court with certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 132 and Art. 133 of the Constitution, and it was held that the appeal was not maintainable sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of offences under ss. 205, 467 and 468 read with s. 114 I.P. Code. In appeal the Additional Sessions Judge held that the complaint was competent only in respect of the offence under s. 205 read with s. 114. The High Court dismissed a revision application against the order of the Court of Session. Certificate was there-after issued by the High Court under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Con stitution for leave to appeal against the order. The competence of the High Court to grant the certificate was challenged at the hearing of the appeal. This Court held (Bachawat Mitter JJ., dissenting) that the order passed was a final order within the meaning of Art. 134(1) (c) since the controversy between the parties when the the complaint in respect of offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led. The Court in that case expressly approved of the earlier view at p. 736 where after referring to Kuppusami Rao's case(1) observed: Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb's case( ) observed: ...... these were cases where the impugned orders were passed in appeals or revisions and since an appeal or a revision in continuation of the original suit or proceeding the test applied was whether the order disposed of the original suit or proceeding. If it did not, and the suit or proceeding was a live one, yet to be tried, the order was held not to be final. Different tests have been applied, however, to orders made in proceeding independent of the original or the main proceeding. In our judgment an order passed by the High Court in appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
