Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 88 (3.01 seconds)
Documents citing Chakkara Chappan vs Moidin Kutti on 28 October, 1898

Vaman Ravji Kulkarni vs Nagesh Vishnu Joshi on 6 October, 1939

152 Benson J. treated the observation as referred to the particular facts of that case, but the question was fully considered by a bench of six Judges of the Madras High Court in Chappan v. Moidin Kutti (1898) I.L.R. 22 Mad. 68, f.b. and full effect was given to that observation, referring to which Shephard C.J. said (p. 80) :-" The question is, in my opinion, concluded by authority which it is beyond our province to criticise." As rightly pointed out by Subramania Ayyar J. (p. 84), the observations of the Privy Council cannot be regarded as obiter. The contention that Section 588 modified clause 15 of the Letters Patent was not only distinctly raised, but was also strongly pressed by counsel in the argument. Their Lordships had, therefore, to give a decision upon the soundness or unsoundness of that contention, and that they did in unmistakable terms.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

M. Paramasivan Pillai vs A.V.R.M.S.P.S. Ramasami Chettiar on 20 January, 1933

27. The question whether an appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a single Judge of the High Court passed on an appeal preferred to the High Court under Order 43, Civil Procedure Code (corresponding to Section 588 of the earlier Code), has been the subject of discussion in some cases in this Court. The decision of Boddam and Bhashyam Aiyangar, JJ., in Muthuvaien v. Periasami Iyen (1903) 13 M.L.J. 497, is directly against the contention raised by the respondent before us. The learned Judges, after noticing the reasoning of the Full Bench of this High Court, in the case reported in Chappan v. Moidin Kutti (1898) I.L.R. 22 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Shew Prosad Bungshidhur Kalooram ... vs Ram Chunder Haribux on 18 July, 1913

A reference to the Court note makes it clear to my mind that he is not mistaken in this because there is a reference in that note to Chappan v. Moidin Kutti (1898) I.L.R. 22 Mad. 68 which could only have been advance of for the purpose of an argument concerning appealability under Clause 15 from an order passed under Section 622. My confidence in the correctness of Mr. Sinha's recollection is not shaken by the fact that the authorised report unfortunately does not contain any reference to the citation of that authority.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Jagdish Prasad vs Kapoor Chand And Ors. on 9 August, 1977

Thus it is clear that the power of revision exercised by the High Court was a part of the appellate court's jurisdiction. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was amended in 191'9 and the words 'not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction' were added into this clause and therefore the Full Bench decision in Chappan v. Moidin Kutti (Supra) of the Madras High Court is no longer good law as regards the maintainability of an appeal against an order of a Single Judge in revision. Nevertheless the weighty observations of Subramania Ayyar J. as regards the revisional jurisdiction are still entitled to great weight,
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next