https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199070 An order refusing to restrain proceedings in an earlier suit was treated as a judgment affecting parties' rights, so an appeal lay under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. On Section 10 CPC, the Court held that a stay does not require complete identity of all issues or reliefs; it is enough that the earlier suit substantially determines the central matter in controversy and would operate as res judicata in the later suit. As both suits turned on the true terms of the same contract, the Bombay suit was stayed in favour of the earlier Calcutta proceedings. en-us Tue, 22 Jul 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:17:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199070 An order refusing to restrain proceedings in an earlier suit was treated as a judgment affecting parties' rights, so an appeal lay under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. On Section 10 CPC, the Court held that a stay does not require complete identity of all issues or reliefs; it is enough that the earlier suit substantially determines the central matter in controversy and would operate as res judicata in the later suit. As both suits turned on the true terms of the same contract, the Bombay suit was stayed in favour of the earlier Calcutta proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Jul 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199070