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

1932 Supreme(SC) 38

Zahirul-Said Alvi – Appellant
Versus
Lachhmi Narayan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.M. Parikh, Majid

Lord Blanesburgh.-

In this case the only question their Lordships have now to determine is whether the decree appealed from, of 21st October 1926, which in terms is not expressed to be by consent , was in fact made by consent. In obedience to an order of His Majesty in Council of 12th February 1931, [AIR 1931 PC 107], made in accordance with advice humbly tendered by their Lordships to His Majesty, a remit was sent to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces, being the Court which pronounced the decree in question requesting that Court to inform their Lordships whether or not the decree was in fact made by consent.

Their Lordships have now been informed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in a report made to the Board, that its judgment of 21st October 1926, and the decree appealed from following thereon, were professedly made with the consent of the parties: that is to say, the decree was consensual and did not, except so far as authorized by consent, embody any judicial finding by the Court itself. Accordingly the decree is one from which no appeal to His Majesty in Council can be entertained. Only in substantive proceedings appropriate to that particul









































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