Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Article 135 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kannan And Ors. vs Narayani And Ors. on 30 October, 1979
In Kannan v. Narayani, 1980 KLT 9 (AIR 1980 Kerala 76) a Full Bench of this Court considered the question as to whether a decree of an original Court under appeal merges in appellate decree. The question arose in a context where a correction to amend the decree had to be filed. After referring to Section 152. C.P.C. and the power of the Court to correct or amend the decree, it was held that there was inherent power in the Court to correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from an omission and to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. But when an appeal is preferred from an original decree and the appellate Court has dealt with the matter and dismissed the appeal confirming the decree of the trial Court, a question arose as to whether a correction petition has to be filed before the trial Court or the appellate Court. It was in this context that the question of merger arose for consideration in that case.
Gojer Bros. Pvt. Ltd vs Ratan Lal Singh on 1 May, 1974
7. Following the decisions in Gojer Brothers v. Ratan Lal, AIR 1974 SC 1380, Jowad Hussain v. Gendan Singh, AIR 1926 PC 93 and also the decision in I.T. Commissioner v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. AIR 1958 SC 868, the Court took the view that as a result of the confirmation or affirmance of the decision of the Tribunal by the Appellate Authority, the original decision merges in the appellate decision and it is the appellate decision alone which subsists and is operative and capable of enforcement. It was also held that consequence of the confirmation or affirmance of the decision of the inferior Court by the superior Court, is to render the decision of the superior Court alone to subsist and to be operative and capable of enforcement. It is, therefore, held that the period starts from the date of the appellate Court decree.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 182 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Saiyid Jowad Hussain vs Gendan Singh on 15 June, 1926
7. Following the decisions in Gojer Brothers v. Ratan Lal, AIR 1974 SC 1380, Jowad Hussain v. Gendan Singh, AIR 1926 PC 93 and also the decision in I.T. Commissioner v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. AIR 1958 SC 868, the Court took the view that as a result of the confirmation or affirmance of the decision of the Tribunal by the Appellate Authority, the original decision merges in the appellate decision and it is the appellate decision alone which subsists and is operative and capable of enforcement. It was also held that consequence of the confirmation or affirmance of the decision of the inferior Court by the superior Court, is to render the decision of the superior Court alone to subsist and to be operative and capable of enforcement. It is, therefore, held that the period starts from the date of the appellate Court decree.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
U.J.S. Chopra vs State Of Bombay on 25 March, 1955
After referring to the judgment of the Supreme court in U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 633 : (1955 Cri LJ 1410) it was held thus : (at Page 649 of AIR)
"A judgment pronounced by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction after issue of a notice and a full hearing in the presence of both the parties would certainly be arrived at after due consideration of the evidence and all the arguments and would, therefore, be a judgment and such judgment when pronounced would replace the judgment of the lower Court, thus constituting the judgment of the High Court the only final judgment to be executed in accordance with law by the Court below."
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs M/S. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co on 28 April, 1958
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to draw distinction between the above case and the present one in that here the appeal was filed by the defendant and hence, according to him, when the appeal is filed by the plaintiff there is change in the principle of merger. I cannot agree. Whether the appeal was filed by the plaintiff or the defendant has no relevance in deciding the question of merger. It is the final decree which becomes executable.