TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Clarification on 'Judgment' Definition in Letters Patent Clause 15: Impact on Suit Determines Appealability</h1> <h3>T.V. Tuljaram Row Versus M.K.R.V. Alagappa Chettiar</h3> The court clarified the definition of 'judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, emphasizing that it includes final orders, decrees, or judgments and ... - Issues Involved:1. Definition of 'judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. Distinction between 'judgment,' 'sentence,' and 'order.'3. Applicability of 'judgment' to interlocutory orders.4. Criteria for determining what constitutes a 'judgment.'5. Appealability of various types of orders and judgments.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Definition of 'judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent:The primary issue revolves around interpreting the term 'judgment' as used in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The court acknowledges the difficulty in reconciling various decisions on this point. The term 'judgment' is not used in contradistinction to 'sentence' or 'order,' which follow it, indicating that the legislature did not intend 'judgment' to encompass all orders in civil proceedings. The court emphasizes that the effect of the adjudication, rather than its form, determines whether it qualifies as a 'judgment.' An adjudication that ends the suit or proceeding, or would do so if not complied with, qualifies as a 'judgment.'2. Distinction between 'judgment,' 'sentence,' and 'order':The court clarifies that the words 'not being a sentence or order passed or made in any criminal trial' were introduced to exclude criminal proceedings from the section's operation. This exclusion does not imply that 'judgment' includes all orders in civil proceedings. The court also distinguishes between final judgments, decrees, or orders and interlocutory judgments, decrees, or orders, noting that 'judgment' in Section 15 does not include every order in interlocutory proceedings.3. Applicability of 'judgment' to interlocutory orders:The court states that an order on an independent proceeding ancillary to the suit, such as an interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver, qualifies as a 'judgment' within the meaning of the clause. However, an adjudication that is merely a step towards obtaining a final adjudication in the suit is not a 'judgment.' The court also mentions that an order made on an application that is interlocutory in form may still be a 'judgment' under Section 15 of the Letters Patent.4. Criteria for determining what constitutes a 'judgment':The court outlines that the test for determining whether an adjudication is a 'judgment' is its effect on the suit or proceeding. If the adjudication ends the suit or proceeding, or if its non-compliance would end the suit or proceeding, it qualifies as a 'judgment.' The court disagrees with the notion that a 'judgment' must affect the merits by determining some right or liability, asserting that an adjudication can be a 'judgment' even if it does not affect the merits or determine any question of right.5. Appealability of various types of orders and judgments:The court reviews several cases to determine the appealability of different orders and judgments. It agrees with the decision in *Somasundaram Chetti v. Administrator-General* that an order giving the Administrator-General commission at a certain rate is appealable as it ends a proceeding. However, it disagrees with the decision in *R. v. R.* that an order fixing a date for the hearing of a suit is appealable. The court also disagrees with the decisions in *Veerabadran Chetty v. Nataraja Desikar* and *Maruthamuthu Pillai v. Kirishnamachariar* that orders for evidence to be taken on commission or refusing a commission are appealable. The court asserts that the refusal to exercise discretion, if it ends the suit, is appealable, contrary to the decisions in *Appasarni Pillai v. Somasundra Mudaliar* and *Chinnasami Mudali v. Arumuga Goundan.*Conclusion:The court concludes that the term 'judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent includes final orders, decrees, or judgments and certain interlocutory orders that effectively end the suit or proceeding. However, it does not encompass all interlocutory orders. The court's analysis emphasizes the effect of the adjudication on the suit or proceeding as the primary criterion for determining whether it qualifies as a 'judgment' and is thus appealable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
