Firm Ramchand Manjimal And Others v. Firm Goverdhandas Vishandas Ratanchand And Others, Privy Council, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Privy Council Appeals Nos. 157, 158, 159, and 161 of 1919

Attorney(S)

T.L. Wilson and Co.
Messrs
Wontner and Sons
Messrs
E.B. Raikes
John Simon
K. Brown
Upjohn

Judges

Ameer Ali
Sir John Edge
Lord Moulton
Justice Viscount Cave

Acts

section 109 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908,
section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

These suits arose from alleged breaches of contracts for the sale of cotton, each containing an arbitration clause. The defendants applied under section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899 for a stay of proceedings to refer the disputes to arbitration. The first Court granted the stay, but on appeal, the Judicial Commissioner of Sind reversed this decision and refused the stay. Applications were then made to the Judicial Commissioner for certificates under section 109(a) or alternatively section 109(c) of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 to enable appeals to the Board. The Judicial Commissioner's Court considered the orders refusing the stay as final and granted certificates under section 110, allowing appeals to be brought before His Majesty in Council. An objection was raised that the orders refusing the stay were not final, and therefore appeals should not lie.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the orders refusing a stay of proceedings under the arbitration clause constituted final orders.
Whether appeals against such orders lie before His Majesty in Council under the applicable procedural provisions.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Salaman v. Warner [1891] 1 Q. B. 734	Definition of a final order as one that finally disposes of the rights of the parties.	Followed to determine that the orders refusing stay were not final as they did not dispose of rights finally.
Bozsch v. Altricham Urban District Council [1903] I. K. B. 547	Reaffirmed the principle that only orders finally disposing of parties' rights are final orders.	Applied to confirm that the orders under appeal were interlocutory and not final.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined whether the orders refusing a stay of proceedings were final orders within the meaning of the relevant procedural statutes. It relied on established case law, particularly Salaman v. Warner and Bozsch v. Altricham Urban District Council, which held that a final order must finally dispose of the parties' rights. Since the orders refusing the stay did not finally determine the rights but left them to be adjudicated by the courts in the ordinary course, the court concluded that these orders were interlocutory and not final. Consequently, appeals against such orders were not maintainable.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court held that the orders refusing the stay of proceedings were not final orders, and therefore, appeals against them could not proceed before His Majesty in Council. The direct effect is that the appeals were dismissed with costs. No broader precedent was established beyond affirming the existing principle that only final orders are appealable under the relevant statutory provisions.

Show full summary ...

Firm Ramchand Manjimal And Others v. Firm Goverdhandas Vishandas Ratanchand And Others

Viscount Cave :-

These are suits for alleged breaches of certain contracts for the sale of cotton. Each contract contained an arbitration clause, and the defendants in each suit applied under section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899 for a stay of proceedings with a view to the issues being referred to arbitration under the clause. The first Court granted a stay, but on appeal the Judicial Commissioner of Sind reversed the orders and refused a stay of proceedings. Applications were made to the Judicial Commissioner for certificates under section 109 (a), or in the alternative under section 109 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, with a view to an appeal to this Board. The learned Judges of the Judicial Commissioner's Court took the view that the orders refusing a stay were final orders and accordingly, granted a certificate under section 110 to the effect that the value of the matter in dispute exceeded Rs. 10,000. Thereupon the appeals were brought to His Majesty in Council and the objection is raised that the orders refusing a stay were in fact not final and, accordingly, that the appeals do not lie.

Their Lordships have considered the matter and are of opinion that the preliminary objection succeeds. The question as to what is a final order was considered by the Court of Appeal in the case of Salaman v. Warner. [1891] 1 Q. B. 734 = 39 W. R. 547 = 60 L. J. Q. B. 624, and that decision was followed by the same Court in the case of Bozsch v. Altricham Urban District Council. [1903] I. K. B. 547 = 51 W. R. 337 = 67 J. P. 397 = 72 L. J. K. B. 271 = 1 L. G. R. 639 = 19 T. L. R. 266. The effect of those and other judgments is that an order is final if it finally disposes of the rights of the parties. The orders now under appeal do not finally dispose of those rights, but leave them to be determined by the Courts in the ordinary way.

In their Lordships' view, the orders wore not final, and accordingly the appeals cannot proceed, and their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that they should be dismissed with costs.

Two of the appeals have already been withdrawn, as regards certain of the parties, and therefore the order will not apply to those.

Appeals dismissed.

Firm Ramchand Manjimal And Others v. Firm Goverdhandas Vishandas Ratanchand And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Firm Ramchand Manjimal And Others v. Firm Goverdhandas Vishandas Ratanchand And Others

Comments