SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(SC) 93

A.N.RAY, K.K.MATHEW, V.R.KRISHNA IYER
Mamleshwar Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Kanhaiya Lal – Respondent


Advocates:
D.D.SHARMA, M.L.Jain, M.S.Bindra, R.K.MEHTA, S.S.Dalal, SARJU PRASAD, UMA MEHTA, V.D.Mahajan

Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.: - A common judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court disposed of four appeals, the points covered by all being admittedly identical. Special leave was granted by this Court and thus four appeals came into existence here. However, the appellants before us moved this Court that with a view to save money and energy, one of the four may be directed to be got ready and disposed of and the others may, thereafter, follow the fate of the first. On this basis C. A. 2556 of 1966 was heard at length and decided adversely to the present appellants. Shri Bindra, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the earlier adjudication by this Court amounted to a judgment per incuriam and did not bind him or the Court. He was thus free to argue on the merits, especially the holding on the civil court s jurisdiction, and the matter was at large. We have to consider this contention on its merits.

2. Certain background facts bearing on the narrow question above posed serve to appreciate the point made. The present batch of appeals, as already stated, emanated from a judgment covering them all rendered by the Delhi High Court which itself arose out of a like com



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top