Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.25 seconds)

Surat Goods Transport Pvt. Ltd. Co. vs Asharam Someshwar Suthar And Ors. on 12 July, 1982

In Moosa Suleman Salehji v. Secretary of State, AIR 1929 Cal 135, the facts were that the same set of appellants had filed four appeals against the decision of the District Judge in four land acquisition matters relating to the compensation awarded for acquisition of four plots of land. There was a common respondent in each appeal, viz. the Secretary of State. The appellants made an application praying that all the four appeals may be consolidated: in effect, the prayer was that the memoranda of appeals in all those cases should be considered as one memorandum of appeal and that after having done that, Section 17 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, which is in pari materia with Section 18 of our Court-fees Act, should be applied and that they should be allowed to pay Court-fees on the consolidated value of all the four appeals instead of paying Court-fees for each appeat separately, as they were bound to do under ordinary circumstances. The Division Bench, which considered the application, observed that there was no objection to consolidating a number of appeals in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction oi the Court, if the matter for consideration in a number of appeals was the same and the parties also were the same. However, it was another matter when the aid of Section 17 was sought to be invoked on the allegation that the memorandum of appeal in each of those four cases should be consolidated into one memorandum of appeal and treated as if it was one memorandum embracing two or more distincts subjects. Such consolidation could not possibly be permitted in terms, the Division Bench observed as follows at page 136 :--
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raja Kamala Ranjan Ray vs Abhoy Charan Paul And Ors. on 26 April, 1939

In support of his contention, he relies upon Moosa Soleman v. Secretary of State and In re Vythilinga Pandara Sanuadhi (1930) 17 A.I.R. Mad. 381. His contention in substance comes to this : that the application for transfer must be considered as an independent application, unconnected with the pending first appeal. It would accordingly require separate vakalatnama, the vakalatnama filed in the pending first appeal being insufficient. The pendency of the first appeal according to him only supplies the ground for transfer. The contention of Mr. Banerjee is that the vakalatnama which he has filed in the first appeal enables him to move the application, because it is an application filed in the first appeal and his prayer for transfer can at most be subdivided into thirteen prayers, each for the transfer of one appeal pending in the Court of the District Judge. If, says he, the applications for transfer had been in respect of suits or appeals which were not in any way connected with any appeal pending here the contention of the learned Senior Government Pleader may probably be right.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1