Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Durga Das Das vs Nalin Chandra Nandan And Ors. on 9 March, 1934

Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. vs Anuradha Masala Udhyog Pvt. Ltd. on 7 December, 2007

11. Pronouncements of law, which are not part of the ratio decidendi are classed as obiter dicta and are not authoritative. With all respect to the learned Judge who passed the order in Jamna Das' case and to the learned Judge who agreed with him, we cannot concede that this Court is bound to follow it. It was delivered without argument, without reference to the relevant provisions of the Act conferring express power on the Municipal Corporation to direct removal of encroachments from any public place like pavements or public streets, and without any citation of authority. Accordingly, we do not propose to uphold the decision of the High Court because, it seems to us that it is wrong in principle and cannot be justified by the terms of the relevant provisions. A decision should be treated as given per incuriam when it is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or of a rule having the force of a statute. So far as the order shows, no argument was addressed to the court on the question whether or not any direction could properly be made compelling the Municipal Corporation to construct a stall at the pitching site of a pavement squatter. Professor P. J. Fitzgerald, editor of the Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th edn., explains the concept of sub silentio at p. 153 in these words:
Allahabad High Court Cites 132 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sen Mukherjee And Co. vs Smt. Chhaya Banerjee on 2 December, 1997

In this connection it will be appropriate to mention a case (Durga Das v. Nalin Chandra Nandan) where a Bench consisting of 3 Judges of this Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of temporary injunction and attachment before judgment, which are undoubtedly discretionary in nature, held that if the trial Judge rightly appreciates the fact and applies to those facts the correct principle while exercising such discretion that will be a sound exercise of discretion. (Per Majority, Buckland, Ag. C.J. and Lort William, J.).
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 7 - R Pal - Full Document

V.K. Nataraja Gounder vs S.A. Bangaru Reddiar on 4 October, 1963

The essential requirements which must be proved to the satisfaction of the court are: (1) the defendant is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property; or (2) the defendant is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court, and (3) that the defendant is intending to do so to cause obstruction or delay in the execution of any decree that may be passed against him. Vague and general allegations that the defendant is about to dispose of the property or remove it beyond the jurisdiction of the court, unsupported by particulars, would not be sufficient compliance with the rule. It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to state the grounds on which he entertains the belief or apprehension that the defendant would dispose of or remove the property, or, to give the source of his information and belief in the matter. This is really settled law on the subject. Senaji Kapurchand v. Pannaji Devichand, ILR 46 Bom 431: (AIR 1922 Bom 276); Bedanand Rai v. Nabo Kumar Singh, AIR 1938 Pat 161; Durga Das v. Nalim Chandra, 38 Cal W N 771: (AIR 1934 Cal 694). A verbatim copy of the provisions of the Code in the affidavit in support of the application, or a mechanical repetition of the language of the Code without an iota or substratum of truth underlying the allegation, would be merely colourable and would constitute an abuse of process of court. The court must insist upon the strict proof of the said allegation. Any order of the court without a proper investigation whether the allegations are well-founded or not, would constitute a gross dereliction of duty.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

R.Ramesh vs R.Raveender on 28 February, 2014

5. ... The essential requirements which must be proved to the satisfaction of the court are: (1) the defendant is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property; or (2) the defendant is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court, and (3) that the defendant is intending to do so to cause obstruction or delay in the execution of any decree that may be passed against him. Vague and general allegations that the defendant is about to dispose of the property or remove it beyond the jurisdiction of the court, unsupported by particulars, would not be sufficient compliance with the rule. It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to state the grounds on which he entertains the belief or apprehension that the defendant would dispose of or remove the property, or, to give the source of his information and belief in the matter. This is really settled law on the subject. Senaji Kapurchand v. Pannaji Devichand, ILR 46 Bom 431: (AIR 1922 Bom 276); Bedanand Rai v. Nabo Kumar Singh, AIR 1938 Pat 161; Durga Das v. Nalim Chandra, 38 Cal W N 771: (AIR 1934 Cal 694). A verbatim copy of the provisions of the Code in the affidavit in support of the application, or a mechanical repetition of the language of the Code without an iota or substratum of truth underlying the allegation, would be merely colourable and would constitute an abuse of process of court. The court must insist upon the strict proof of the said allegation. Any order of the court without a proper investigation whether the allegations are well-founded or not, would constitute a gross dereliction of duty."
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - R Mahadevan - Full Document
1   2 Next