Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
STUART, WALSH, JJ.
Kamta & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Parbhu Dayal & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 03-11-1916
JUDGMENT
1. In this case four issues were framed. The Munsif decided the first issue in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. Now the first issue was an issue which, if decided in favour of the defendants, finally disposed of the suit. If on the other hand it was decided in favour of the plaintiffs, it left other issues undetermined, and the suit, therefore, came up to the Appellate Court in the condition that if the first issue was wrongly decided, the remaining issues had not been decided at all, and it was necessary to decide them.' Having regard to the previous deoisionsiu this Court and particularly to the decision in Mata Din v. Jamna Das (1), we think that that was a preliminary point within the meaning of Order XLI, Rule 23. It is most import: ant that on these questi ns of practice the decisions of the Court should be consistent. "We think, therefore, that the case was a proper one for remand under that order. A further point has been suggested that the Appellate Court improperly admitted additional evidence, but there seems to be no force in that point although it was put in the forefront of the memorandum of appeal. (1) 27 A. 691 : A. W. N. (1905) 159 : 2 A. L.J. 685. We are not disposing of the suit, which still remains to be decided on the result of issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the Munsif's Court.
2. This appeal must be dismissed with costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
