Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-16-1960
Reported in : AIR1960All692
Mootham, C.J. 1. The question which has been referred to this Bench is whether an order of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing an appeal against an order granting a temporary injunction is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The meaning which should be given to the word 'judgment' in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court and in the corresponding Clauses of the Letters Patent of the other High Courts has engaged the minds of Judges for close on a hundred years, and has given rise to a divergence of opinion which can now only be resolved by the Supreme Court. The question has been considered in a very large number of cases many of which have been referred to in the judgment of my brother Srivastava. Basically there are three views as to what constitutes a 'judgment'. A decision according to one view will amount to a judgment if it determines some right or liability affecting the merits of the dispute between the parties; according to the seco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-10-1960
Reported in : AIR1961All245
Mootham, C.J. 1. The applicant filed a suit against the respondents for the recovery of Rs. 1,39,000 due on a promissory note. The trial court ordered to be recorded a compromise which the applicant contended had been arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the suit,, and it passed a decree in the terms of the compromise save with regard to one provision thereof. Two of the defendants appealed to this Court under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (m) C. P. C. against the order recording the compromise, and this Court by an order dated the 28th September, 1959, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court. The plaintiff then filed an application for a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution and the Bench hearing the application has referred to this Court the following question. 'whether the order of this Court reversing the order of the trial court recording a compromise amounts to a judgment or final order within the meaning of these terms in Article 13...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-12-1960
Reported in : AIR1962All461
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal came up for hearing before a Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Beg and Mr. Justice Mathur. There was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges and the scope of that difference is discernible from the three questions they framed for obtaining the opinion of a third Judge. The questions which were formulated were these:'1. Is the notice relied upon by the plaintiff as complying with the provisions of Section 80, C. P. C. invalid on the ground that it does not state the cause of action? 2. The plaintiff having sent notices ExL. 3 dated 8-11-1947 and Exhibit 8-P. W. 4 dated 18-12-1947, was it still necessary for him to send another notice under the provisions of Section 80, C. P. C. as amended by C P C (Amendment) Act, 1948 (Act No. VI of 1948)? 3. Should the entire claim of the plaintiff for damages be dismissed on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the market value of goods at the place of destination on the date on which such goods ought t...
Tag this Judgment!