Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.41 seconds)

United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Kartar Singh Campbellpuri on 1 May, 1952

18. In dealing with the question as to the circumstances under which an order for costs can be made against a stranger to a suit a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that before such an order can be passed the stranger should be made a. party to the litigation and he must be given an opportunity of being heard. See Chandra Shekhar v. Manohar Lal, A. I. R. 1942 ALL. 233 (p. B.). The order of 19th May 1951 which was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice was thus an order passed without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed by Certiorari. It appears however that subsequently upon representation being made by the petitioner a representative of the petitioner was heard on 9th June 1951 at Naini Tal but the respondent confirmed the order that he made on 19th May 1951 at Dehra Dun. The petitioner has however not been made a party to the proceeding and has thus been reprived of its right of appeal under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act. In the circumstances the petitioner has properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vinayakrao Pandurangrao Desai vs Sharanappa Ramanna Metri on 2 April, 1943

In Chandra Shekhar v. Manohar Lal [1934] A.L.J.R. 383 a decree on the face of it was against the minor plaintiffs, and it was held (though it was contended that the minor plaintiffs were merely benamidars for their next friend, the father who had represented them) that the executing Court was powerless to go behind the decree and that the decree-holders could not execute their decree for costs against the next-friend who was not a party to the decree. In that case the main contention urged was as to the benami character of the minor judgment-debtors, and it was apparently not even considered necessary to advance the argument that ordinarily it is the next friend of the unsuccessful minor plaintiff who would be liable for costs.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1