The trial companyrt decided the issue against the appellant and the order was companyfirmed in appeal by the High Court of Bombay.
Applications by respondent number 1 for revocation of the certificate granted by the Madras High Court on 15th October, 1968 under Art.
This issue was tried as a preliminary issue and as it raised the question of the vires of the Bombay prevention of Ex companymunication Act, 1949, the State of Bombay was impleaded as a party defendant in the suit.
companymunication passed by the appellant religious head of a companymunity was invalid.
Appeals from the judgment and order elated October 9, 1968 of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No.
Against the order deciding the issue, an appeal was preferred to this Court with certificate granted by the High Court under Art.
C. Setalvad.
133 1 a b of the Constitution of India.
the High Court of Madras set aside that order.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Misc.
AND Civil Appeals Nos.
M.K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for respondent No.
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.
401/and 4012 of 1968.
Petitions Nos.
Ramamurthi, J., by order dated April 12, 1968, granted an interim injunction restraining encashment of the letters of credit pending disposal of the suit.
Mohan Kumaramangalam.
Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for respondent No.
V.P. Raman, D.N. Mishra, and J.B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
2183 and 2184 of 1968.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. M s. Tarapore Company hereinafter called the plaintiffs applied in Suit No.
In appeals under the Letters Patent preferred by the second defendant,.
118 of 1967 for an interim injunction restraining the Bank of India Ltd. the first defendant in the suit from taking any steps in pursuance of a letter of credit opened in favour of M s. V O Tractors Export, Moscow, the second defendant.
25 and 27 of 1968.
During the pendency of the suit them Bombay Prevention of Ex communication Act 42 of 1949 was enacted and one of the issues raised in the suit was whether the order of ex communication was invalid.
