TARAPORE & CO. versus M/S. V/O TRACTORS EXPORT, MOSCOW & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 699 · Decided: 15-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
--'. 
H 
TARAPORE & CO. 
V • 
M/S. V /0 TRACTORS EXPORT, MOSCOW & ANR. 
November 15, 1968 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE AND 
. 
A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Art. 133-lntflrim injunction granted tn suit 
whether a 'final order' for purpose of Article. 
M/s Tarapore & Co. who were plaintiffs in a suit applied for an 
interim injunction restraining the first defendant in the suit from taking 
any steps in pursuance of a letter of credit opened in favour of the 
second defendant. 
A single judge of the High Court granted an interim 
injunction restraining encashment of the letters of credit pending disposal 
of the suit. 
In appeal5 under the Letters Patent preferred by the second 
defendent, the High Court of Madras set aside that order. 
Against the 
orders passed in the two appeals, the 
plaintiffs 
applied for 
certificate 
under Arts. 133(1) (a) and 133(1) (b) of the Constitution. The High 
Court observed that an order 
granting interim 
injunction "is a final 
order, " far as this Court is concerned, determining the rights of parties 
within this /is or proceeding, which is independent though ancillary to 
the suit", and they were competent to grant certificate. In this Court the 
defendants applied for 
revocati\Jn of the certificate. 
HELD : The certificate must be revoked. 
An order passed by the High Court in appeal which does not finally 
dispose of a suit or proceeding and leaves the rights and 
obligations ot 
the parties for determination in the suit or pr.::iceeding from which the 
appeal has arisen, is not final within the meaning of Art. 133(1)(a) 
and (b). The order refusing to grant an interim injunction did not 
determine the rights and obligations of 
the parties in relation to 
the 
matter in dispute in the suit. It could not be held that because 
the 
plaintiffs suit as a result of the order of the High Court may become 
infructuous as framed and the plaintiff may have to amend his plaint 
to obtain effective relief an orde.r which is essentially an interlocutory 
order may be deemed final for the purpose ot Art. 133(1) of the Consti-
tution. [704 HJ 
Mohan/al Magan/al Thakkar's ca>e makes no departure from the 
earlier judgments of the judicial Committee, the Federal Court and this 
Court. 
Ra1nchand Manji1nal v. Gove.rdhandas Vishindas Ratanchand, L.R. 
47 I.A. 124; Salaman v. Warner, [1891] I Q.B. 734; Bazson v. Altri11cham 
Ur/;an District Council, [1903] 1 K.B. 547; Isaacs v. 
Selbstein, [19'161 
2 K.B. 139, Abdul Rahman v. D. K, Cassim & Sons, L.R. 60 I.A. 76; 
S. Kuppusami Rao v. The King, [1947] F.C.R. 180; Mohammad Amin 
Brothers Ltd, and Others v. Dominion of Indla and Others, [1949-50] 
F.C.R. 842; Sardar Syedna Toher 
Saifuddin 
Saheb v. The State 
of 
Bombay, [1958] S.C.R. 1007; Srinivasa Prasad Singh v. Kesho 
Prasad 
Singh 13 C.L.J. 681 and Druva Coal Company v .. Benaras Bank, 21 Cal. 
L.J. 281, referred to. 
Mohan/a/ Magan/a/ Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, 
A.LR. 
1968 s:c. 
733, explained. 
• 
.. 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969) 2 S.C.R 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Misc. Petitions Nos. 
4011 and 4012 of 1968. 
Applications by respondent no. 1 for revocaticn of the certifi-
cate granted by the Madras High Court on 15th October, 1968 
under Art. 133(1) (a) & (b) of the Constitution of India. 
AND 
Civil Appeals Nos. 2183 and 2184 of 1968. 
Appeals from the judgment at11d order dated October 9, 1968 
of the Madras High Court in 0.S.A. No. 25 and 27 of 1968. 
M. C. Setalvad. V. P. Raman, D. N. Mishra, and J. B. Dada· 
chanji, for the appellant. 
S. Mohan Kumaramangalam. M. K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala 
Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for respondent No. 1. 
Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. M/ s. Tara pore & Company-hereinafter called the 
plaintiffs-applied in Suit No. 118 of 1967 for an interim injunc-
tion restrainmg the Bank of India Ltd.-the first de.fendant in the 
suit-from taking any steps in pursuance of a letter of credit 
opened in favour of M/s. V /0 Tractors Export, Moscow, the 
second defendant. 
Ramamurthi, J., by order dated April 12, 
1968, granted an interim injunction restraining encashment of the 
letters of credit pending dis;>osal of the suit. ln appeals under the 
Letters Patent preferred by the second defendant, the High Court 
of Madras set aside that order. Against the orders passed in the 
two appeals, the plaintiffs applied

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.