Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.39 seconds)
Documents citing Saroj Ranjan Sinha And Ors. vs Joy Durga Dasi on 6 June, 1933

Chandrashekar Gurupadappa Kaladagi vs Basawanneppa Shidappa Mali And Ors. on 12 January, 1965

(18) However, there is a later decision of the said Court reported in Saroj Ranjan Sinha v. Joy Dura Dassi, AIR 1934 Cal.140 wherein their Lordships held that "an attachment order in favour of the judgment-debtor has not the effect of staying the execution permanently. It does not prevent the decree-holder from applying for execution of his decree for money after allowing the decree of the judgment-debtor against him to be set off". The contention raised in that case was that the effect of the attachment before judgment brought about at the instance of the appellant was to arrest or stay the execution of the decree of the decree-holder. Their Lordships negatived this contention by pointing out that it is open to both the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder to execute the decree which was the subject matter of execution and therefore the attachment does not operate as a stay. Though they have not referred to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet, they, in terms, stated that since both the attaching creditor and the decree-holder are entitled to execute the decree, the order of attachment does not operate as a stay.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cherukuru Brahmiah vs Kurapati Chelavapilla Setti And Ors. on 12 November, 1963

The question is which the execution of the Kavali decree was stayed by the order (Ex. A-2) dated 22-2-1957. If it amounted to a stay order for the purpose of Section 15, then beyond doubt, the E. P. would be saved by limitation by exclusion of the period from 22-2-1957 to 10-2-1960. The order (Ex A-2) has already been extracted in this judgment. On a similar order passed by the Collector, a Division Bench of this Court in Soorayya v. Mallayya, relying on the decisions in Kadimcherja Raju v. Kondapi Ayyapa Raju, AIR 1935 Mad 352 and Channabasappa Nagappa v. Holibasappa Basappa, AIR 1924 Bom 383 and Saroj Ranjan Sinha v. Joy Durga Dassi, AIR 1934 Cal 140 observed as follows (at p 232) "It will be seen from the aforesaid decisions that the scope of the provisions of Section 15, Limitation Act, is confined only to an absolute stay granted by Courts The principle underlying this section is apparent It the execution of the decree was stayed, it would be an unnecessary burden on the decree-holder and an empty formality if he should be compelled to file execution application at the risk of his decree otherwise being getting barred. A decree, which has been stayed, cannot obviously be executed. So, under this section, the period covered by the stay order is allowed to be excluded from the period of limitation.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Bhiwani Central Cooperative Bank ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 22 September, 2017

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payment could not be made by the judgment-debtor/petitioner to the respondents by 15.07.2017 and now the matter is listed before the learned executing Court for 29.09.2017. Placing reliance on the judgments in Saroj Ranjan Sinha and others Vs. Joy Durga Dasi, AIR 1934 Cal 140 (Calcutta High Court), Bhoganadham Seshaian Vs. Budhi Veerabhadrayya (died) and others, AIR 1972 AP 134 (Andhra High Court) and Bijaysingh Mansingh Baid and others Vs. Mansingh H. Baid, 2000 (2) BomCR 580 (Bombay High Court), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment- debtor/petitioner was entitled to recover the embezzled amount from the dues of the deceased Sh. Radhey Shyam, predecessor-in-interest of the contesting 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-09-2017 04:06:34 ::: CR No.6259 of 2017 3 respondents.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - R S Malik - Full Document
1