Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 147 (1.13 seconds)
Documents citing V.M. Abdul Rahman vs D.K. Cassim And Sons on 19 December, 1932

V. C. Shukla vs State Through C.B.I on 7 December, 1979

To quote the language of Sir George Lowndes in Abdul Rahman v. D. K. Cassim and Sons, the finality must be a finality in relation to the suit. If after the order the suit is still a live suit in which the rights of the parties have still to be determined, no appeal lies against it. The fact that the order decides an important and even a vital issue is by itself not material. If the decision on an issue puts an end to the suit, the order will undoubtedly be a final one, but if the suit is still left alive and has got to be tried in the ordinary way, no finality could attach to the order."
Supreme Court of India Cites 70 - Cited by 603 - S M Ali - Full Document

Bongu Sri Ramamurthy Naidu And Ors. vs Bongu Satyanarayana Naidu And Ors. on 18 August, 1948

The learned Judges in appeal disposed of all the main issues in the suit; but were unable to pass a decree, because they held that the interest admissible on the promissory note was at the Rangoon nadapu rate; and since there was no evidence as to what the "Rangoon nadapu rate" was, it became necessary to remand the suit and appoint a Commissioner to determine it. The learned Judges held that even though that was the only question left open, the rights between the parties were not finally disposed of. They referred to Abdul Rahman v. D.K. Cassim and Sons (1932) 64 M.L.J. 307 : L.R. 60 I.A. 76155 (83) : I.L.R. 11 Rang. 58 (P.C.)
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajeev Sharma vs Pradeep Kumar on 28 March, 2025

In full agreement with the decisions of the Judicial (committee in Ram Chand Manjimal v. Goverdhandas Vishindas and Abdul Rahman v. D. K. Cassim and Sons, and the authorities of the English Courts upon which These pronouncements were based, it has been held by this court that the test for determining the finality of an order is, whether the judgment or order finally disposed of the rights of the parties." C Thus, the Federal Court in its 34 ( 2025:HHC:9529 ) decision seems to have accepted two principles, namely,­ (1) that a final order has to be. interpreted in contradistinction to an interlocutory order: and (2) that the test for determining the finality of an order is whether the judgment or order finally disposed of the rights of the parties.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - V Singh - Full Document

Rajeev Sharma vs Pradeep Kumar on 28 March, 2025

In full agreement with the decisions of the Judicial (committee in Ram Chand Manjimal v. Goverdhandas Vishindas and Abdul Rahman v. D. K. Cassim and Sons, and the authorities of the English Courts upon which These pronouncements were based, it has been held by this court that the test for determining the finality of an order is, whether the judgment or order finally disposed of the rights of the parties." C Thus, the Federal Court in its 34 ( 2025:HHC:9529 ) decision seems to have accepted two principles, namely,­ (1) that a final order has to be. interpreted in contradistinction to an interlocutory order: and (2) that the test for determining the finality of an order is whether the judgment or order finally disposed of the rights of the parties.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - V Singh - Full Document

Southern Roadways (P.), Ltd. vs Madurai Veeraswami Nadar (Died) And ... on 7 October, 1963

was a case similar to Abdul Rahman v. Cassim & Sons (1932) 64 M.L.J. 307 : 60 I.A. 76 : I.L.R. 11 Rang. 58 (P.C.), where there was only a determination of one of several issues. It was held that such a decision being in the nature of an interlocutory judgment, not having the effect of disposing of all matters in controversy in suit, would not be a judgment. In both the decisions just now referred to, the order was not regarded as amounting to a final order for the reason that the suit in which that order was made, whether at the stage of the suit itself or at the stage of its continuation in appeal did not finally dispose of the matter in controversy between the parties. The order was merely in the nature of an interlocutory judgment.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dr. Sumit S/O Narayanprasad Fogla vs Sou. Shradha W/O Sumit Fogla on 15 July, 2015

To quote the language of Sir George Lowndes in Abdul Rahman v. D.K. Cassim & Sons, the finality must be a finality in relation to the suit. If after the order the suit is still a live suit in which the rights of the parties have still to be determined, no appeal lies against it. The fact that the order decides an important and even a vital issue is by itself not material.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Z A Haq - Full Document

Rajeev Sharma vs Pradeep Kumar on 28 March, 2025

In full agreement with the decisions of the Judicial (committee in Ram Chand Manjimal v. Goverdhandas Vishindas and Abdul Rahman v. D. K. Cassim and Sons, and the authorities of the English Courts upon which These pronouncements were based, it has been held by this court that the test for determining the finality of an order is, whether the judgment or order finally disposed of the rights of the parties." C Thus, the Federal Court in its 34 ( 2025:HHC:9529 ) decision seems to have accepted two principles, namely,­ (1) that a final order has to be. interpreted in contradistinction to an interlocutory order: and (2) that the test for determining the finality of an order is whether the judgment or order finally disposed of the rights of the parties.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - V Singh - Full Document

Rajeev Sharma vs Pradeep Kumar on 28 March, 2025

In full agreement with the decisions of the Judicial (committee in Ram Chand Manjimal v. Goverdhandas Vishindas and Abdul Rahman v. D. K. Cassim and Sons, and the authorities of the English Courts upon which These pronouncements were based, it has been held by this court that the test for determining the finality of an order is, whether the judgment or order finally disposed of the rights of the parties." C Thus, the Federal Court in its 34 ( 2025:HHC:9529 ) decision seems to have accepted two principles, namely,­ (1) that a final order has to be. interpreted in contradistinction to an interlocutory order: and (2) that the test for determining the finality of an order is whether the judgment or order finally disposed of the rights of the parties.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - V Singh - Full Document

Rajeev Sharma vs Pradeep Kumar on 28 March, 2025

In full agreement with the decisions of the Judicial (committee in Ram Chand Manjimal v. Goverdhandas Vishindas and Abdul Rahman v. D. K. Cassim and Sons, and the authorities of the English Courts upon which These pronouncements were based, it has been held by this court that the test for determining the finality of an order is, whether the judgment or order finally disposed of the rights of the parties." C Thus, the Federal Court in its 34 ( 2025:HHC:9529 ) decision seems to have accepted two principles, namely,­ (1) that a final order has to be. interpreted in contradistinction to an interlocutory order: and (2) that the test for determining the finality of an order is whether the judgment or order finally disposed of the rights of the parties.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - V Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next