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

1986 Supreme(Ker) 358

PADMANABHAN
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
GOVINDAN PONNAMMA – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Both the appeals are filed by the State of Kerala against two money decrees obtained by the same set of persons in two suits for declaration and mandatory injunction directing the defendant State to refund money deposited as bid amount and duty in Abkari auctions. The two C. M. Ps. are for stay of execution. A learned judge of this Court ordered interim stay and notice in both the petitions. The petitions came up for hearing at the instance of the respondents. They wanted the State in both appeals to be directed under 0.41, R.1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code to deposit the entire decree amount. 0.41, R.1(3) reads -

"(3) Where the appeal is against a decree, for payment of money, the appellant shall, within such time as the Appellate Court may allow, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Court may think fit "

2. Mr. K. P. Dandapani on behalf of the respondents said that under 0.41, R.1(3) deposit of the amount disputed in the appeal or furnishing security in respect thereof is mandatory for the maintainability of an appeal when it is against a decree for payment of money. He cited two decisions in support of his con

















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