Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)Ganga Bai vs Vijay Kumar & Ors on 9 April, 1974
This judgment of the Calcutta High Court was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors. (supra). In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held by the Supreme Court that under the Code of Civil Procedure an appeal lies only against a decree or against an order passed under the rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ramesh Chandra vs Shiv Charan Dass And Ors on 21 September, 1990
In the case of Ramesh Chandra v. Shiv Charan Das and Ors. 1990 (Supp.) Supreme Court Cases 633, it has been held by the Supreme Court that one of the test to ascertain if a finding operates as res judicata is if the party aggrieved could challenge it. It is, therefore, clear that if a party aggrieved by a finding is unable to challenge the finding by filing an appeal then the said finding will not operate as res judicata. That being so it has to be held in the present case that the finding recorded against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case will not operate as res judicata against them. In a case where a decree is absolutely in favour of one of the party but if some issue is decided against him then the party against whom the issue is decided does not have any right to file appeal because he is not adversely effected and as the finding is not embodied in the decree it does not form part of the decree and therefore, no right to appeal accrues to the said party. Keeping the principles as indicated hereinabove it has to be held that the first appeal filed by the respondents was not maintainable.
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
M/S. Ram Mohan & Co Rep. By Its ... vs Ganesar Ginning Co.P.Ltd., Coimbatore ... on 19 March, 1999
The question is again considered by the Patna High Court in case of Jugal Kishore Singh and Ors. v. Sheonandan Singh and Ors. , so also Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Konda Lakshman Bapuji v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. and by Madras High Court in the case of Corporation of Madras v. P.R. Ramachandrish and Ors. and Ram Mohan and Co. and Anr. v. Ganesar Ginning Co. P. Ltd., Coimbatore and Ors. AIR 2000 Madras 1 and in the case of Ramesh Chandra v. Shiv Charan Dass and Ors., a complete reading of all these judgments indicate an appeal under Section 96 or 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable only against an adverse finding if it does not found part of the decree. Even though a finding is adverse to a party concerned the right to file appeal against such a finding is available only if the same operates as res judicata in a subsequent case.
Konda Lakshmana Bapuji vs Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 January, 2002
The question as to how a finding will operate as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding is considered by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Konda Lakshman Bapuji v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (supra), after considering an earlier judgment on the question it has been held that a finding can be challenged if the finding operates as res judicata and is binding on the aggrieved party in the future also it is explained that if the decree could be passed even without deciding the issue against the aggrieved persons then the finding will not operate as res judicata. Accordingly the question would be as to whether the decree in the present suit could be passed without recording the adverse finding against the defendant Raghunath and respondent No. 2 Kamod Singh.
Arjun Singh And Ors. vs Tara Das Ghosh And Ors. on 7 September, 1973
A Full Bench of Patna High Court has considered this question in the case of Arjun Singh and Ors. v. Tara Das Ghosh and Ors. , and after considering the legal principles it is observed by the Full Bench that, it is well settled that a party against whom a finding is recorded has got right to appeal even though the ultimate decision may be in his favour. However, such a right is available only if the finding can operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceedings it is held by Full Bench that if finding does not operate res judicata then no right to appeal is accrues.
Controller Of Estate Duty, Madras vs C. R. Ramachandra Gounder on 27 February, 1973
The question is again considered by the Patna High Court in case of Jugal Kishore Singh and Ors. v. Sheonandan Singh and Ors. , so also Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Konda Lakshman Bapuji v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. and by Madras High Court in the case of Corporation of Madras v. P.R. Ramachandrish and Ors. and Ram Mohan and Co. and Anr. v. Ganesar Ginning Co. P. Ltd., Coimbatore and Ors. AIR 2000 Madras 1 and in the case of Ramesh Chandra v. Shiv Charan Dass and Ors., a complete reading of all these judgments indicate an appeal under Section 96 or 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable only against an adverse finding if it does not found part of the decree. Even though a finding is adverse to a party concerned the right to file appeal against such a finding is available only if the same operates as res judicata in a subsequent case.
Jugal Kishore Singh And Ors. vs Sheonandan Singh And Ors. on 26 July, 1972
The question is again considered by the Patna High Court in case of Jugal Kishore Singh and Ors. v. Sheonandan Singh and Ors. , so also Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Konda Lakshman Bapuji v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. and by Madras High Court in the case of Corporation of Madras v. P.R. Ramachandrish and Ors. and Ram Mohan and Co. and Anr. v. Ganesar Ginning Co. P. Ltd., Coimbatore and Ors. AIR 2000 Madras 1 and in the case of Ramesh Chandra v. Shiv Charan Dass and Ors., a complete reading of all these judgments indicate an appeal under Section 96 or 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable only against an adverse finding if it does not found part of the decree. Even though a finding is adverse to a party concerned the right to file appeal against such a finding is available only if the same operates as res judicata in a subsequent case.