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

1923 Supreme(Mad) 104

RAMESAM
Krishna Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Thanikachala Mudali – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.

1. This is an appeal from an order of the Judge sitting on the Original Side transferring a suit from the District Court of Chingleput to the High Court under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent. As a preliminary point it is argued that no such appeal lies on the ground that the order is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In the recent case of Kanayalal Bhoya v. Paramasuk Doss (1922) 16 L.W. 608, I stated that "I do not propose to attempt to add a further definition to those which have already been given in other cases. Definition after definition has been attempted of that word. A very narrow meaning was given to it by Sir Richard Couch in Justices of the Peace for Calcutta v. The Oriental Gas Co. 8 Beng. L.R. 435. A much wider definition was given by a Full Bench of this Court in Tuljaram Rao v. Alagappa Chettiar (1910) I.L.R. 35 M. 1 : 21 M.L.J. 1 (F.B.), and it is enough for me to say that, in these matters, this Court is bound, by the opinion of its own Full Bench in that case. An attempt was made to give rules in that case which should be exhaustive of any matters that can come before this Court, and, in m




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