Skip to content


Ramji Bhagala Vs. Krishnarao Karirao Bagra and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1718 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1982SC1223; (1982)1SCC433
AppellantRamji Bhagala
RespondentKrishnarao Karirao Bagra and anr.
Excerpt:
.....appeal, the respondent moved the high court for the issue of an appropriate writ, and the high court allowed the petition. in his appeal to this court, the joint chief controller con- tended that, since the transfer of quota rights was a condition precedent to the grant of an import licence, the person in whose favour such a transfer had been recognised or sanctioned was entitled to rely upon that transfer only for a period subsequent to such sanction or recognition and not for any anterior period. held:(per p. b. gajendragadkar, c.j., k. n. wanchoo, j. c. shah and s. m. sikri, jj.) the licensing authority had to deal with the application for a licence on the basis that the approved quotas were given to the partners of the dissolved firm from the date of the dissolution and the..........fact that there was a proposal to introduce clause 12a in order 41 providing for admission of appeal as to a part by that clause does not seem to have found its way into the statute. we would, therefore, set aside the order passed by the division bench affirming the order of mr. justice s.k. desai as also the order of mr. justice s.k. desai and remand the appeal to the high court so that the high court may consider whether the appeal should be admitted wholly or rejected wholly. there will be no order as to costs of the present appeal.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. We find from the judgment dated 5th October, 1979 given by S.K. Desai, J. that he has admitted the appeal in so far as prayer a (i), a (ii) and (a) are concerned and rejected the appeal so far as prayer (b) and the enquiry for mesne profits are concerned. The learned Judge seems to have proceeded on the assumption that there has been a recent amendment in the CPC under which he could admit the appeal as to a part and reject it as to the other. We do not find any such amendment in the Code nor has any such amendment been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Our attention is drawn by Mr. Bhandare, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, to the fact that there was a proposal to introduce Clause 12A in Order 41 providing for admission of appeal as to a part by that clause does not seem to have found its way into the statute. We would, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Division Bench affirming the order of Mr. Justice S.K. Desai as also the order of Mr. Justice S.K. Desai and remand the appeal to the High Court so that the High Court may consider whether the appeal should be admitted wholly or rejected wholly. There will be no order as to costs of the present appeal.


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