Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)
West Jamuria Coal Co. vs Bholanath Roy And Ors. on 4 September, 1953 cites

Jamnadas Prabhudas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 31 March, 1952

In the case of -- 'Jamnadas Prabhudas v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay City (J)' (Supra), the Bombay High Court thought that a reference in an income-tax proceeding was a matter to which the Article applied, though it did not find it necessary to decide whether such a reference was a civil proceeding. Mr. Gupta contended that there was no reason to think that civil and criminal proceedings were excluded altogether from the purview of Article 135. I am not sure that he was right, seeing that Article 133 provides for an appeal from a judgment, decree or final order "in a civil proceeding" and Article 134 provides for an appeal from a judgment, final order or sentence "in a criminal proceeding" so that those two fields appear to be covered by those two Articles. Article 132, however, provides for an appeal on questions of interpretation of the Constitution from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court, "whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding." Proceedings, other than civil or criminal, are therefore within the contemplation of the Constitution and it may well be that Article 135 provides for an appeal from orders in such proceedings in cases where an appeal lay to the Federal Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 21 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Rm. Nl. Ramaswami Chettiar And Ors. vs The Official Receiver, Representing ... on 24 August, 1951

In the case of -- 'Ramaswami Chettiar v. Official Receiver' (N), the order sought to be appealed from was of the same kind as in the Assam case and it was held by the Madras High Court that the order was not ippeal-able under any of the clauses of Article 133(1) inasmuch as it did not finally determine the points in dispute between the parties and did not bring the case to an end. The learned Judges, in the course of their judgment, made an elaborate examination of the case-law bearing on the meaning of the term 'final order' Unfortunately, they ignored the word 'judgment' which is the one word which makes all the difference in the form of expression between Section 109 of the Code and Article 133(1) of the Constitution. In -- ' (J)', before the Bombay High Court, the principal question was whether the opinion given by the High Court upon a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act was a 'judgment' at all, inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the High Court in such references is purely advisory or consultative, but Chagla C. J. and Tendolkar J. considered the meaning of the phrase 'judgment, decree or final order' and concluded that there was no reason to hold that the framers of the Constitution had repeated the same language as used in Section 205(1), Government of India Act of 1935 with a different intention. So far, therefore, as decided cases go, they have been unanimous in holding that an order, not finally determining the suit or proceeding, is not appealable under Article 133(1).
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next