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

1999 Supreme(SC) 1276

B.N.KIRPAL, S.RAJENDRA BABU
Madhavan Nair – Appellant
Versus
Ramankutty – Respondent


(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) THE trial court had decreed the suit for recovery which had been filed by the respondent. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the said decision whereupon a second appeal was filed by the respondent herein before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(3) IT is contended by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri Paikeday for the appellant that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court was required to frame a substantial question of law which was not done in the instant case. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri K. Sukumaran for the respondent that there was a State amendment made in Section 100 in Kerala wherein a new clause (d) was inserted to the effect that the finding of the lower appellate court on any question of fact material to right decision of the case on the merits being in conflict with the finding of the court of first instance on such question would be maintainable. He, therefore, submits that as the judgment of the lower appellate



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