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

BALASUBRAMANIAN PILLAI v. VALLIAPA CHETTIAR


Balasubramanian Pillai V. Valliapa Chettiar

1938 Present: Hearne J. and Wijeyewardene A. J.

BALASUBRAMANIAN PILLAI v. VALLIAPA CHETTIAR.

APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL LEAVE TO

APPEAL TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

286-D. C. Colombo, 4,520.

Privy Council-Application for conditional leave-Notice of intended application When it should be given-Appeal ( Privy Council ) Ordinance, rule 2, schedule. 1.

Where an application for conditional leave is made under rule 2, schedule I of Appeal (Privy Council) Ordinance, No. 31 of 1909, it is not imperative that the respondent should receive notice of the intended application before it is filed.

THIS was an application for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council.

H. V. Perera, K. C. (with him S. Subramaniam), for the petitioner.

E. F. N. Gratiaen (with him J. A. T. Perera), for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

August 31, 1938. HEARNE J. -

This is an application for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council.

Judgment was entered by this Court on May 27, 1938, in S. C. 286 (F) D. C. Colombo, 4,520; the judgment was a final judgment and the matter in dispute on appeal is over Rs. 5,000 in value.

Two comm









































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