T.S.THAKUR, VEENA BIRBAL
Crocodile Int. Pte Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Lacoste S. A. – Respondent
T.S. Thakur, J.
1. In cases involving a challenge to the validity of an interlocutory order, the question of maintainability of an appeal often becomes the subject matter of a forensic debate. The present appeal is no exception and, in our opinion, rightly so because the order under challenge before us is neither a decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor is the same appealable under Order 43 of the Code. An appeal may even then be maintainable provided the order is "judgment" within the meaning of clause 10 of the Letters Patent read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act. As to what would amount to a "judgment" under the said two provisions, is not easy to answer. In the absence of any precise definition of what would constitute a "judgment", judicial pronouncements alone remain a guiding factor. These pronouncements have stopped short of drawing an exhaustive list of what would and what would not constitute a "judgment" under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The result is that the question has to be answered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Before we do so in the case at hand, we must briefly state the facts lea
Ameer Trading Corp. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. AIR 2004 SC 355
Exports Unlimited v. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation 1996 37 DRJ 109
Jugal Kishore Paliwal v. S. Sat Jit Singh (1984) 1 SCC 358
Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and Anr. 1982 1 SCR 187
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.