Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.40 seconds)
Sudam Charan Sahu vs Sasmita Sahoo And Others ... Opposite ... on 31 January, 2023 cites

Ct. A. Ct. Chidambaram Chettiar vs Ct. A. Ct. Subramanian Chettiar And Ors. on 14 December, 1951

492.] , the Division Bench of the Madras High Court considered the question whether it was open to the trial Court to make a reference to arbitration in the suit during pendency of the order of stay of further proceedings granted by the superior Court. Justice Venkatarama Aiyar speaking for the Court answered the question in the affirmative. I have carefully perused all the decisions referred to above. With respect, I would agree with the view taken by the learned Judges of the Madras, Mysore, Madhya Pradesh and Bombay High Courts holding that the lower Court retains its jurisdiction to consider and pass orders in matters which are collateral or which may be protective or which would be for the purpose of keeping the lis alive, even during subsistence of the order of the superior Court directing stay of further proceedings in the suit. But the Court should take care to ascertain that the subject matter in the petition does not touch the trial of the suit which has been stayed by the superior Court. To hold otherwise may in many cases work out injustice inasmuch as for every collateral matter the parties will be compelled to approach the appellate or revisional Court though such a matter may not be within the ambit and scope of appeal or revision pending before the superior Court. To give an instance, when an appeal or revision is filed against an interlocutory order, the matter dealt with in that order is the subject matter in appeal or revision as the case may be. The application relating to the collateral matter may have ho connection with the appeal or revision. In such cases also the party will be compelled to approach the appellate or revisional Court if it is held that in view CMP No.756 of 2022 Page 13 of 17 of the stay order the trial Court is denuded of his jurisdiction to piss any order in the suit. On the aforesaid analysis, I would hold that the learned Subordinate Judge was not right in holding that in view of the order of this Court directing stay of further proceedings in the suit the petitioners' application under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code filed before him was not maintainable." (emphasis supplied)
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next