https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277459 An order of remand in second appeal is not automatically a judgment under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The controlling test is whether the impugned order conclusively decides the controversy, wholly or partly, for the court making it. A direction that merely sends an issue back for trial or further evidence is only a procedural step and is not a judgment. By contrast, where the appellate court sets aside the decree under appeal and remands the matter on the basis of a binding merits decision, the order has sufficient finality to amount to a judgment and is appealable. A dissenting view treated judgment as equivalent to a decree and denied appealability. en-us Fri, 18 Apr 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Dec 2018 17:58:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277459 An order of remand in second appeal is not automatically a judgment under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The controlling test is whether the impugned order conclusively decides the controversy, wholly or partly, for the court making it. A direction that merely sends an issue back for trial or further evidence is only a procedural step and is not a judgment. By contrast, where the appellate court sets aside the decree under appeal and remands the matter on the basis of a binding merits decision, the order has sufficient finality to amount to a judgment and is appealable. A dissenting view treated judgment as equivalent to a decree and denied appealability. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Apr 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277459