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

1997 Supreme(AP) 862

G.BIKSHAPATHY, P.B.MISHRA, P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU
Badanaboyina Veera Nageswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Badanaboyina Rama Devi – Respondent


P. S. MISHRA, C. J.

( 1 ) WHEN time passes and situations undergo changes, conventions of the courts and rules of procedure are sometimes stretched and even violated. Every High Court in matters of procedure is given freedom by the laws made by the competent legislature and to seek uniformity of procedure in all the courts in the country is to seek concurrence of minds of Judges of different courts of the country, which is possible only when they interact and recognise the wisdom behind a particular procedure, which is followed in any Court. This Court, although created after independence and the Constitution of the republic of India has inherited and by law made by the Parliament, conferred with the Letters Patent power of the Madras High Court, a Full Bench of this court in A. Srinath vs. APSRTC has accepted that the practice of the Madras high Court applies perforce to this Court. The Full Bench has traced the history of the creation of this Court stating inter alia as follows:"the history of the creation of this Court goes to the period of King george III of Great Britain when under the Letters Patent dated 26-12-1818 a Supreme Court of Judicature at Madras was established foll








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