Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing B. Sital Prasad vs Clements Robson And Co. And Anr. on 8 January, 1921

Pulin Behari Pal And Anr. vs Iswar Chandra Pal Firm And Ors. on 9 January, 1945

In deciding the case in Sital Prosad v. Clement Robson & Co. ('21) 8 A. I. R. 1921 All., the Allahabad High Court proceeded upon an interpretation of Section 42, Civil P. C., which cannot, in our opinion, be accepted as proper. All that Section 42, Civil P. C., lays down is that the Court executing the decree sent to it shall have the same powers in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself. This does not mean that a litigant can approach the executing Court for obtaining a particular relief, for which he has been expressly directed to apply to the original Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

B. Krishna Chandra Agarwal vs Firm Mohan Lal Bhikam Das And Co. on 6 August, 1937

Sital Prasad v. Clements Robson & Co. A.I.R. 1921 All. 199 is certainly distinguishable, because the learned Judges did not lay down that the Court which had passed a decree ceases to have jurisdiction in the matter although Order 21, Rule 50(2) expressly refers to such Court. Furthermore Order 21, Rule 28 also provides that any order of the Court by which the decree was passed, or of such Court of Appeal aforesaid in relation to the execution of such decree, shall be binding upon the Court to which the decree was sent for execution. We are therefore unable to hold that the Bombay High Court had ceased to have jurisdiction to grant leave under Order 21, Rule 50(2) merely because it had transferred the execution of its own decree to the Fatehpur Court. If the appellant wishes to raise any question as to fraud in getting service effected of the summons issued by the Bombay High Court or wishes to have the order of the Bombay High Court set aside or reviewed, his remedy is apparently to apply to that Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kammela Somasekhara Rao vs Kammela Seshagiri Rao on 21 July, 1959

16. Our conclusion gains support also from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Sital Prasad v. Messrs Clement Robson and Co.. ILR 43 All 394: (AIR 1921 All 199 (2)). It was decided there that an award under the Arbitration Act could be transferred for execution to another Court and the Court to which the award was transferred had all the powers as the Court which passed the decree to determine any of the matters arising in execution proceedings. Dealing with the ambit of Section 42 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Bench observed that for the purpose of execution, the transferee Court must be deemed to be the Court which passed the decree, that there was no limitation in that section which was intended to be of general application and which should have been intended as a matter of genera] convenience to remove all questions arising out of the decree such as those dealt with by Section 47 of the Code and the like from the cognisance of the Court which made the transfer and which passed the decree. Our attention was not drawn to any ruling of that Court which dissented from the above.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Firm Motilal Lalchand vs Firm Jiwanlal Kailashchand And Ors. on 28 October, 1970

9. It may be pointed out that in the present case the execution application dated 23-9-1954 was disposed of by the Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar on 4-12-1957 more than six months after the aforesaid amendment. The execution application in question was pending at the time when the aforesaid amendment was made by the Allahabad High Court and the Muzaffarnagar Court, therefore, could apply it to the execution application pending before it. But apart from that even in the earlier cases Sital Prasad v. Clements Robson and Co. AIR 1921 All.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanwal Das vs The Collector Of Etah on 12 March, 1924

That section has been interpreted by this Court in Sital Prasad v. Clement Robson and Co. (1921) I.L.R. 43 All. 394, and it has been held that the enactment is clearly intended to be of general application and to remove all questions arising out of the decree, such as those dealt with by Section 47 of the Code and the like, from the cognizance of the court which made the transfer. We think that neither the impleading of the Collector as a party as representing the Court of Wards which had taken over the superintendence of the judgment-debtor's estate, nor the order transferring the decree for execution (the latter order might have been, though in fact it was not, passed ex parte) amounts to a decision of the question whether the decree-holder's demand must be deemed to have been satisfied under Section 18 of the Court of Wards Act; and we hold that the judgment-debtor was not precluded from taking this, plea before the learned Subordinate Judge of Aligarh.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Narain Gurwala vs Vadi Lal Ichcha Chand on 14 November, 1962

2. It is no doubt true that there is a conflict of judicial decision on the matter. The Patna High Court in Kalu Ram v. Sheonand Rat Jokhi Ram, AIR 1932 Pat 323 dissented from the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sital Prasad v. Clements Robson and Co., AIR 1921 All 199 (2) and held that an application under Order XXI, Rule 50 (2) is only entertainable by the Court which passed the decree and not by the transferee Court. But this view has not been accepted by the Punjab High Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pottiswami, Alleged Partner Of ... vs Salt Sulaiman (Mitta) on 4 February, 1942

3. The scope of Order 21, appears to be that where Rule 10 applies the' word 'Court' alone is used. Where as in Rule 16, Rule 26 "or Rule 50 it is intended that the application should be restricted to one Court that one Court is specifically referred to. The learned Subordinate Judge relied however, upon Sital Prasad v. Clement Robson and Company (1921) I.L.R. 43 All. 394.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1