Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 120 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Chitturi Subbanna vs Kudapa Subbanna & Others on 18 December, 1964

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited vs Rajeev Daga & Anr on 21 January, 2022

We all know that a ratio would not be applicable to the different facts of another case. If the mere method of computation and the amount of mesne profits were the subject matter of dispute then unquestionably the ratio of the Supreme Court case would have applied. Here, the argument that is advanced is whether the appellant would be liable to mesne profits for a particular period of time that the property was in the physical possession of the Receiver. It is said that since the property was in the physical possession of the Receiver from 20th October, 1993 till 24th April, 2014, it could not be in the wrongful possession of the appellant which was an essential fact which had to exist for their liability in mesne profits. The judgment and decree of the first court dated 15th July, 2013 had categorically declared the possession of the appellant to be wrongful and directed calculation of mesne profits by the Special Referee for a specific period including the period of physical possession by the special officer. This finding was not challenged before the appellate court here, nor before 13 the Supreme Court. It has become final and binding. Therefore, it could not be said that it was a controversy which arose in future at the time of determination of mesne profits as was the situation in the case decided by the Supreme Court in Chittoori Subbanna vs. Kudappa Subbanna and Ors. This issue had become squarely res judicata between the parties, in my opinion.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Nizamuddin - Full Document

Smt. K. Lakshmamma vs T.M. Rangappa And Ors. on 13 August, 2003

The Trial Court while awarding other reliefs awarded mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of possession and there was no dispute regarding claim for determination of mesne profits in respect of 'B' Schedule property, wherein the plaintiff was held to be entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/24th share and the statement of facts made in para 1 of the judgment shows that there was no compliant in the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to mesne profits in respect of 'B' Schedule property and wherefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the question regarding determination of profits in respect of 'A' and 'C' Schedule properties only wherein the plaintiff was held to be entitled to possession of the property and for recovery of possession of the property and wherefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 CPC, as the said claim would fall within Category 1 mentioned in SUBBANNA's case referred to above and wherefore, the said observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while determining the question regarding ascertainment of mesne profits in a suit where the plaintiff had obtained decree for recovery of possession would not be helpful to the respondent in this case to contend that there is no other provision in the Civil Procedure Code to determine mesne profits as the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated above has to be considered in the light of the above said facts of the case and the Supreme Court has now held that in a suit for partition, mesne profits will be determined under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC., (Subbayya Setty's case ). Therefore, it is clear that while considering determination of mesne profits to which the plaintiff is entitled to in a suit for partition and separate possession, the provision that would be applicable is Order 20 Rule 18CPC, and not Order 20 Rule 12 CPC., as laid down by the above said decision.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - V G Sabhahit - Full Document

Subba Reddiar vs Hazra Bibi on 8 February, 1972

3. On the question of the precise scope of Order XX, Rule 12, C. P. Code and the want of jurisdiction of the court in awarding mesne profits for a period exceeding three years, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Subbanna v. Subbanna, . On a careful examination of the decision of the Supreme Court in the light of the particular facts therein, we are not inclined to hold that the aforesaid decision supports the contention of the appellant. All the High Courts, in a uniform course of decision, have taken the view that Order XX, Rule 12, C. P. Code will not apply to a suit for partition and that it is Order XX, Rule 18, Civil P. C. which governs such an action. We are unable to hold that the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above has impliedly overruled uniform course of decisions of all the High Courts.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Ajinomoto India Pvt Ltd vs Chennai( Port Import) on 21 August, 2024

[see Chitturi Subbanna Vs Kudapa Subbanna & Others - 1965 AIR 1325 / 1965 SCR (2) 661]. Many a time such points arise from the averments and as a counter to legal positions that are taken at the time of making submissions. With the appellant taking the help of subsequent day judgments and legal issues that have crystalised after a passage of time, revenue cannot be asked to contest the same with one arm tied to its back, by way of denying any fresh arguments on a point of law not taken before the Original Authority. Averments on a point of law helps in giving a rounded view and in making good law. We hence permit the same.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lucy Kochuvareed vs P. Mariappa Gounder And Ors. on 7 February, 1979

27. Another principle, recognised by this Court in Chitturl Subbanna v. Kudapa Subbanna (ibid) is that a decree under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code, directing enquiry into mesne profits, howsoever expressed, must be construed to be a decree directing the enquiry in conformity with the requirements of Rule 12(1)(c), so that the decree-holder is not entitled to mesne profits for a period (commencing from the date of the institution of the suit) extending beyond three years from the date of the preliminary decree.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Mosa Rajayyan vs Jacob Haris on 23 January, 1981

There is thus a statutory bar against the grant of mesne profits for a period exceeding three years. The decision of the Supreme Court in C. Subbanna v. K. Subbanna (AIR 1965 SC 1325) followed in Lucy Kochuvareed v. P. Mariappa Gounder (AIR 1979 SC 1214) interpreting the provisions of Order XX, Rule 12 C. P. C., cannot be applied to redemption suit under Order XXXIV, inasmuch as there is no provision containing a statutory bar identical to what is contained in Order XX, Rule 12 in Order XXXIV. This contention that the decree is bad, not capable of being executed, for the reason that a preliminary decree did not precede the decree sought to be executed and that there is no direction to pav the mortgage amount within the period stipulated in Order XXXIV. Rule 7, and as a matter of fact the amount was deposited only on 9-12-1977 cannot hold good for the simple reason that the decree has become final, execution petition has been filed within the period of limitation, and the court has found that the amount as directed in the decree had already been deposited.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next