Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)
(Padmanabhini) Ramanamma vs Golusu Appalanarasayya on 20 November, 1931 cites

Gnanasigamani Nadar vs Vedamuthu Nadar on 27 September, 1926

4. It has often been said in this Court that, where a civil suit and a criminal complaint have been filed, which raise the same issues between the same parties, the hearing of the complaint should be stayed until the suit has been decided. And this has been put on the ground that it will avoid a possible conflict in decision. Our brother Jackson has pointed out in a judgment, in which we entirely concur, Gnansigamani Nadar v. Vedamuthu Nadar A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 308, that the risk of such a conflict is one that is inherent in the division of causes into criminal and civil. The judgment of neither is binding on the other and each must decide the cause on the evidence before it. If they arrive at different conclusions, it is regrettable, but unavoidable. The ruling In re Marker [1917] 41 Bom. 1 was relied on in another case in this Court, In re P. S. Velayutham Chetty A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 516. The head-note states that the Bombay ruling was followed. The fact however remains that Krishnan, J., disposed of the criminal revision petition on the merits and not on the decision in the civil proceeding. What he said was that, if he accepted the civil judgment as the basis of his judgment in the criminal case, he would have to find that the conviction was wrong. What he refrained from saying was that it could be accepted as the basis of his judgment. The head-note therefore seems to be inaccurate. If he had been satisfied that the Bombay ruling was un-impeachably correct he could and would have allowed the revision petition without considering the evidence in the criminal case.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1