Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.70 seconds)
Documents citing Kedarnath Kanoria And Ors. vs Khaitan Sons And Co. on 17 December, 1958

Goutami Devi Sitamony vs Madhavan Sivarajan on 10 February, 1976

It is this view that was attacked in the appeal before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The Court took the view that a widow's suit with respect to her husband's estate, though filed by the widow as owner, can very well be deemed to have been instituted as a representative of the estate. Therefore when she died during the pendency of the suit the reversioner who succeeds to the property can step in and prosecute the suit as a person entitled to the estate which was till then represented by the widow. It would be Order XXII, Rule 10 of the Civil P. C. that would operate and not Rule 3 and it would be optional for the party seeking to continue the suit to come on record and prosecute the suit. It will be a matter of discretion for the court to permit him to come on record. Therefore the failure to come in under Order XXII, Rule 10 will not attract the consequences contemplated in Rule 9 (1) of Order XXII. We find no principle stated in this decision which goes against the view expressed by the Calcutta High Court in the decision in Kedarnath Kanoria v. Khaitan Sons & Co., AIR 1959 Cal 368.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Dharamdas Gokaldas And Anr. vs Krishan Chand Hari Chand (Registered) ... on 25 March, 1965

10. The respondents' counsel has referred us to Kedarnath Kanoria v. Khaitan Sons and Co., A I R 1959 Cal 368, Darshanlal Agarwalla v. Happy Valley Tea Co. Ltd., AIR 1958 Cal 691, Chhaganlal Hiralal v. Firm Swaroopchand Hukamchand, AIR 1962 Madh Pra 305, Shop of Bhai Ganeshram Balbhadra v. Firm Mangilal Balkishan, A I R 1952 Nag 390 and Atma Ram v. Banku Mal, AIR 1930 Lah 561 in support of the proposition that in case of a suit by Karta as representing a Joint Hindu Family on his death either the successor Karta or all the members of the Joint Hindu Family should be impleaded in time to avoid abatement.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - I D Dua - Full Document

S. Anjaneyulu vs Soorampally Venkata Rama Gupta And ... on 11 August, 1993

This much was said by R.S. Bachawat, J., and was agreed to by Chief Justice K.C. Das Gupta of the Calcutta High Court, as they were then, in Kedarnath v. Khaitan Sons & Company, . But the present suit is a partition suit. Such a suit does not abate in its entirety because of the death of one of the parties; and when a sole plaintiff dies it abates only so far as the sole plaintiff is concerned. There is no reason why it cannot be continued by the transposition of a willing defendant as plaintiff.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Vantaku Appalanaidu And Ors. vs Peddinti Demudamma And Anr. on 19 November, 1981

8. The appellants have cited a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court reported in American Baptist Mission v. Pattabhiramayya, AIR 1919 Mad 685 and also a judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in Kedarnath v. Khaitan Sons & Co. . I do not find that the questions which have been discussed hereinabove were adverted to at all. Particularly the paramount significant which the Civil P.C. attaches to O. 22, R. 1 repealing the rule of automatic abatement, does not appear to have considered.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bank Kreiss Ag vs Mr. Ashok K. Chauhan And Ors. on 23 October, 2007

13. The position, therefore, is clear that Order 22 Rule 10 CPC cannot apply in a situation where the suit has abated. And, as observed by K. C. Das Gupta, C.J in Kedarnath Kanoria (supra) it is a contradiction in terms to say that the person on whom the interest has devolved is given leave to continue the suit after the suit has ceased to exist. Since I have already held that the suit abated after 90 days of the date on which the merger became effective, the application under Order 22 Rule 10 filed on behalf of the applicant (Yapi Kredi Bank AG) much after the said abatement is not maintainable. It is perhaps open to Yapi Kredi Bank AG to apply for setting aside the abatement under Order 22 Rule 9(2) CPC, accompanied by an application for condensation of delay. But no such applications have been filed by the applicant and unless and until the suit is pending or the abatement is set aside, no application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC can be entertained. Consequently, IA 8275/2003 is allowed and IA 8670/2003 is dismissed.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Jagannath Rangnath Chavan vs Suman Sahebrao Ghawte on 10 September, 2013

" Therefore, unless it is otherwise proved that by a common consent a younger member is appointed karta it would always be reasonable to hold that in the absence of the father the eldest amongst the sons would be the karta of the family if it continues to remain joint. Such was also the view expressed by this Court in the case, of Ganeshmull Surana v. Nagraj Surana , 56 Cal WN 812: (AIR 1953 Cal 294) though the said decision was overruled by the Division Bench on another point in the case of Kedarnath Kanoria v. Khaitan Sons and Co. AIR 1959 Cal.368. "
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - A B Chaudhari - Full Document

S.Sudhakar And Another vs Syed Kareem (Died) And Others on 1 September, 2016

.But the principle laid in Mir Sardar Ali Khan's case (1 supra) cannot be applied to the present case because it cannot be said that the present suit abated in toto on the death of the sole plaintiff. There is no doubt that where the whole suit abates there is no suit which can be continued and the suit is terminated. This much was said by R.S. Bachawat, J., and was agreed to by Chief Justice K.C. Das Gupta of the Calcutta High Court, as they were then, in Kedarnath v. Khaitan Sons & Company. But the present suit is a partition suit. Such a suit does not abate in its entirety because of the death of one of the parties; and when a sole plaintiff dies it abates only so far as the sole plaintiff is concerned. There is no reason why it cannot be continued by the transposition of a willing defendant as plaintiff.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S V Bhatt - Full Document
1   2 Next