Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)
M.Radheshyamlal vs Shailesh on 22 September, 2004 cites

Ganga Bai vs Vijay Kumar & Ors on 9 April, 1974

(emphasis supplied) 9.4. It is, therefore, clear that unless and otherwise the interlocutory order decides the valuable right of the parties, no appeal is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In the instant case, the valuable right of the parties is not decided by the orders on appeal. In the same decision, the Apex Court also observed that the courts have to adopt a justice oriented approach while disposing the applications when the litigant seeks an oppo rtunity to determine his rights. The same view has also been expressed by the Apex Court in the decision of GANGA BAI v. VIJAY KUMAR, AIR 1974 SC 1126, whereunder the rights of the Courts under Section 104(1) and Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC have been dealt with, relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 396 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Shah Babulal Khimji vs Jayaben D. Kania And Anr on 10 August, 1981

9.5. The Apex Court in SHAH BABULAL KHIMJI v. JAYABEN, AIR 1981 SC 1 786, dealt with the scope and object of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and the test to be determined when the same has to be exercised. The Apex Court in clear terms has held that every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned, and that the right conferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent cannot be exercised as a mere discretion or routine exercise of power.
Supreme Court of India Cites 92 - Cited by 536 - S M Ali - Full Document
1