Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.15 seconds)
Documents citing Amar Nath vs Firm Chotelal Durgaprasad And Anr. on 23 August, 1938

Thakarlal vs Smt. Rama And Ors. on 25 August, 1960

Raja Resheecase v. Manik Molla, AIR 1928 Cal 971; Santimmappa v. Balbhim Co-op. Credit Society, AIR 1950 Bom 313; Amar Nath v. Firm Chotelal Durgaprasad, AIR 1938 All 593 (FB); Kameshwar Singh v. Bansidhar Marwari, AIR 1937 Pat 532; Macha Koundan v. Kottora Koundan, AIR-1936 Mad 50 (FB); Mehr Chand v. Milkhi Ram, AIR 1932 Lah 401 (FB); Bahadur Singh v. Ram Phal, AIR 1930 Oudh 148 (FB). I am in respectful agreement with the former view and fully subscribe to the reasoning given in the Bombay and Allahabad cases cited above. In these two cases the reasons which appealed to the learned Judges who decided the Madras and Lahore Full Bench cases referred to above have been considered in detail.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mandreshwar Prasad Singh vs Motilal Rameshwar Prasad on 23 August, 1967

They were also considered and distinguished in a recent Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kamla Prasad Missir v. Chanchal Tewari, 1967 BLJR 629 : (AIR 1967 Pat 430) Reiving on the ratio of the Full Bench decision in the case of Amar Nath v. Firm Chotelal Durga Prasad. AIR 1938 All 593 (FB), it was held that rights of a decree-holder who has purchased at auction sale are limited to those granted under Order XXI Rules 91 and 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and if the auction sale is confirmed that becomes res judicata between him and the Judgment-debtor and he cannot reopen the matter by mere application for further execution unless he can set the order confirming the sale aside and as long as the sale held stands, the decree-holder cannot execute his decree on the allegation that his decree has not been satisfied in full. That was a case of a partial failure of the consideration and not of complete failure of the consideration as it is in the case before us and therefore, it may be said that the facts of the two cases are not exactly similar: but it appears that in the case after a stranger had obtained a decree that he had title to the 3/4th interest in the property sold in a suit under Order XXI Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decree-holder filed an application before the executing court seeking permission to execute his decree for realisation of 3/4th of the decretal amount. It was registered as a miscellaneous case and an order was passed in it granting permission to the decree-holder to levy fresh execution. That order can very well be said to be an order impliedly setting aside the sale but their Lordships ignored that order altogether and held that the fresh executions levied by the decree-holder were not maintainable. On the authority of that decision the order passed under Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the case before us directing the decree-holder to few fresh execution has also to be ignored.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Manjeet Singh T. Anand vs Nishant Enterprises Huf Through Its ... on 8 January, 2026

49. Mr. Jain has submitted that the HUF has been treated as a distinct person under the CPC as well as other statutes. He has submitted that HUF is a corporate / juristic personality in the eyes of law. He has placed reliance on Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC which provides for a Suit against any "person" carrying on business other than his own name, or HUF carrying on business under any name, may be sued in such name or style as it were a firm, and insofar as the nature of such case permits, Rule 10 Order XXX shall apply. He has relied upon the judgment of Privy Council in Amar Nath vs. Firm 30 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 217.
Bombay High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Varkey Mathai And Ors. vs Oommen Oommen And Ors. on 8 November, 1961

9. A contrary view was however taken in Amar Nath v. Firm Chotelal Durgaprasad, AIR 1938 All 593 (FB) where it was held that, apart from Order XXI, Rule 93 Civil Procedure Code, an "auction-purchaser has no right to recover the purchase price by suit from the decree-holder in case it subsequently turns out that what he has purchased does not belong to the judgment-debtor".
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1