Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.18 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Asrumati Debi vs Kumar Rupendra Deb Raikot And Others on 27 February, 1953
In coming to that conclusion the Full Bench applies two tests laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Asrumati Debi v. Kumar Rupendra Deb Raikot, namely, (1) whether it terminates the suit or proceeding, and (2) whether it affects the merits of the controversy between the parties in the suit itself. If either of these conditions is satisfied, then it is a judgment. But if it is only an adjudication on an application which is nothing more than a step towards obtaining a final adjudication in the suit it is not a judgment at all.
Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964
Section 10 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
T.V. Tuljaram Row vs M.K.R.V. Alagappa Chettiar on 29 September, 1910
As early as in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar, (1912) ILR 35 Mad 1 a Full Bench of the Madras High Court the decision in which is binding on us dealing with the question whether an order refusing to frame an issue asked for by one of the parties is a "judgment" within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent laid down-
Central Brokers vs Ramnarayana Poddar And Co. on 15 April, 1954
Another Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Central Brokers v. Ramanarayana Poddar & Co., had to consider whether an order under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other law for stay of the trial of a suit is a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent The Full Bench held that it is not a judgment and that no appeal lies against it under the said Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.