Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Hoshiar Singh vs Ram Dev And Ors. on 5 March, 1976

Anant Raj Agencies vs Delhi Development Authority on 26 July, 2000

Since the Apex Court has already laid down the law pertaining to Order XVII in Manchandas' case (supra), and since the decision in Hoshiar Singh Vs. Ram Dev, was delivered prior to the amendment of the CPC, and further because the case does not pertain to disputes under the Arbitration Act, the relevance of citing it cannot be appreciated. Since valuable public time, in dear dearth, is exhausted, such reference needs to be deprecated.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 6 - V Sen - Full Document

Acme Paper Ltd. vs Dena Bank And Ors. on 11 April, 1997

8. Now, coming to the second point urged on behalf of the petitioner, it is abundantly clear from the record as also from the case advanced on behalf of the petitioner himself that the appeal, being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 787 of 1994, pending before the High Court, M. P. at fabalpur was not against the original ex parte decree, rather it was preferred against an order of the trial court, whereby a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. It is true that both the recourses were open to the judgment-debtor petitioner either to prefer a regular appeal against the ex parte decree or to go for a miscellaneous proceeding for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Whatever may be the net result of the two proceedings, in effect and substance, the test of the two proceedings stood on a different footing and in any view of the matter, since the prayer under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure has already been rejected by the trial court, the original decree, be it in the nature of ex parte, still subsisted. Furthermore, significant to note was the submission at the Bar on behalf of the bank respondent that in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 787 of 1994, the High Court has not granted any ad interim stay order in the matter. There was thus no legal impediment in proceeding ahead with the execution proceeding which has been duly launched by the bank O. P. after obtaining the ex parte decree in due course. The two decisions as relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner reported in Hoshiar Singh v. Ram Dev, , and Jnanendra Mohan Bhadhury v. Profullananda Goswami , do not appear to have formulated any legal proposition to the advantage of the petitioner to avoid the execution proceeding pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1