Skip to content


Mahadev Narsinh Vs. Ragho Keshav and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Bom292
AppellantMahadev Narsinh
RespondentRagho Keshav and anr.
Excerpt:
practice - right of second appeal--suits cognizable by courts of small causes--remand order--act x of 1877, sections 562, 586, 588 and 589. - section 31(4) (since repealed) :[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu, jj] jurisdiction of high court - respondent, a government company, chartered appellants vessel to carry rock phosphate from togo to west coast india - dispute arose between parties - under agreement, respondent had chosen mumbai as port of delivery vessel carrying rock phosphate was delivered at port of bombay - application filed by respondent earlier before delhi high court for appointment of certain individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his demise held, high court of bombay, is not correct in rejecting arbitration petition filed by appellant on ground of lack of.....charles sargent, kt., c.j.1. we think, following chaudhri ranjit singh v. jafar ali khan i.l.r. 3 all. 18 that the right of appeal given by sections 588 and 589 of the code of civil procedure from an order of remand contemplated by section 562 is not taken away by section 586.2. the court then heard the appeal on the merits, and confirmed the remand order of the district judge, with costs.
Judgment:

Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.

1. We think, following Chaudhri Ranjit Singh v. Jafar Ali Khan I.L.R. 3 All. 18 that the right of appeal given by Sections 588 and 589 of the Code of Civil Procedure from an order of remand contemplated by Section 562 is not taken away by Section 586.

2. The Court then heard the appeal on the merits, and confirmed the remand order of the District Judge, with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //