TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an order granting only interim protection, without adjudicating the parties' rights, could be sustained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the final relief in the petition. (ii) Whether the High Court's order, though limited in duration, was a final order disposing of the petitions and therefore appealable.
Issue (i): Whether an order granting only interim protection, without adjudicating the parties' rights, could be sustained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the final relief in the petition.
Analysis: The power under Article 226 is directed to enforcement of legal rights and the grant of writs or directions for that purpose. The High Court had expressly declined to determine the rights of the parties and had kept those questions open for a future civil suit. In that situation, the directions issued were not ancillary to any adjudicated substantive relief and were used only to preserve the petitioners' possession pending a contemplated suit and to avoid the effect of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Such use of Article 226 to grant temporary injunction-like protection as the sole and final relief was outside its scope.
Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to grant the impugned relief under Article 226 as the final and only relief, and the order could not be sustained.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court's order, though limited in duration, was a final order disposing of the petitions and therefore appealable.
Analysis: The directions made on 2 August 1951 disposed of the petitions completely, and the later order of 6 August 1951 made it clear that no other order was intended. The fact that the directions were time-limited did not detract from their finality, because nothing further remained pending before the High Court on the petitions.
Conclusion: The order was final and the appeals were maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's grant of interim-type protection as the sole relief under Article 226 was set aside, and the petitions stood dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 226 cannot be invoked to grant interim protection as the only and final relief where the court has declined to adjudicate the underlying rights; interim relief under that provision must be ancillary to a substantive determination of rights.
TaxTMI 
