Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing A.L.M.S.S. Chinnakarupan Chetty vs M.V.M. Meyyappa Chetty on 26 August, 1915

Shyam Sel & Power Limited vs Bahubali Promoters Private Limited on 28 March, 2019

"This is clear from the use of the expression "Before His Majesty in Council", and this view was expressly adopted in the case of Chinnakaruppan Chetty, A.L.M.S.S. v. M.V.M. Meyappa Chetty reported at (1915) 30 IC 753, where it was pointed out that proceedings on appeal are for many purposes deemed only a continuation of the suit instituted in the first Court, Pichuvayyangar v. Seshayyangar reported at (1895) 18 Mad 214 (FB) and Kristnama Chariar v. Mangammal reported at (1903) 26 Mad 91 (FB). Consequently, the mere fact that the decree in the previously instituted suit is under appeal in this court, does not enable the plaintiffs to invite us to hold that S. 10 is inapplicable."
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - S Sen - Full Document

Bepin Behary Mozumdar And Ors. vs Jogendra Chandra Ghosh And Anr. on 29 August, 1916

3. It is plain that if Section 10 is otherwise applicable, its operation is not excluded by the fact that the previously instituted suit has reached the stage of an appeal. This is clear from the use of the expression. Before His Majesty in Council," and this view was expressly adopted in the case of Chinnakaruppan Chetty A.L.M.S.S. v. M.V.M. Meyappa Chetty 30 Ind. Cas.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Chengalvala Gurraju vs Madapathy Venkateswara Row Pantulu ... on 19 January, 1916

6. There can be little doubt that an appeal is only a continuation of the original proceedings, the decree passed by the Appellate Court being the decree in the suit. Gobinda Chancier Roy v. Guru Churn Kurmokar (1887) I.L.R. 15 C. 94, Dinonath Ghose v. Shama Bibi (1900) I.L.R. 28 C. 23, Settappa Gounden v. Muthia Gounden (1907) I.L.R. 31 M. 268, Chinnakaruppan Chetti v. Meyyappa Chetti (1915) M.W.N. 844, Krishnamachariar v. Mangammal I.L.R. 26 M. 91 at 95; and that on the filing of an appeal the judgment ceases to be res judicata and becomes sub-judice, Nilvaru v. Nilvaru (1881) I.L.R. 6 B, 110. If the appeals had been filed when S.S. 412 of 1911 came up for trial, the Sub-Collector could not have treated his judgment in the suit as having finally decided the matters in issue between the parties so as to render the provision of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code applicable.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Kunhi Sankara Ejaman vs M. Venkappa Bhatta And Anr. on 1 April, 1953

5. There can be no doubt that the order of the lower court cannot be supported because the provisions of Section 10, Civil P. C. are mandatory and leave no discretion to the courts in respect of stay of suits when the circumstances are such as to invoke the operation of that section and which it cannot be seriously disputed is the case in regard to the instant matter. When an appeal has been preferred from a decree in a previous suit, the court should stay a subsequent suit: -- 'Chinnakarupan Chetty v. Meyyappa Chetty', A. I. R. 1916 Mad 732 (1) (A).
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1