Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Mohabir Prosad Singh And Ors. vs Adhikari Kunwar And Ors. on 2 February, 1894

T.V. Tuljaram Row vs M.K.R.V. Alagappa Chettiar on 29 September, 1910

The Calcutta case Mohabir Prosad Singh v. Adhikari Kunwar (1894) I.L.R. 21 C. 473, which this Court purported to follow, is explained away in the later decision in Mussammut Brif Coomaree v. Ramrick Dass (1901. I.L.R. 21 C. 473. I have already dealt with the argument derived from the discretionary character of the order. If pushed to its full length it would cover all cases of specific relief which are within the discretion of the court and the grant or refusal of such relief would cease to be the subject of appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, a result which shows its weakness. It is difficult to distinguish in principle between an order staying execution or refusing to stay it and an order directing security for the costs of an appeal during its pendency. Though the failure to furnish the security may eventually lead to the dismissal of the appeal where security was ordered, the refusal to direct security is not attended with any such consequences.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R. Wall And Anr. vs J.E. Howard And Ors. on 18 March, 1895

In the recent case of Mohabir Prosad Singh v. Adhikari Kunwar I.L.R. 21 Cal. 473, which was an appeal against an order of a single Judge refusing to stay execution under Section 608 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was held that "judgment in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent means a decision which affects the merits of the question between the parties by determining some right or liability." In that view of the law the Court held that refusal to stay execution in the exercise of the discretion given by Section 608 to a Judge or Bench of the Court did not affect any "right or liability by determining any question which affects the merits of the dispute between the parties in any sense."
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Srimati Mathura Sundari Dassi vs Haran Chandra Shaha And Ors. on 21 December, 1915

It is not necessary, however, to adopt that course on the present occasion, as admittedly there is no decision which precisely covers the case before us; and the class of cases which rule that an order refusing [Tara Chand Biswas v. Radha Jeebum Mustofee 24 W.R. 148, Manly v. Patterson 7 C. 339 : 9 C.L.R. 166, Luff Ali Khan v. Asgur Reza 17 C. 455 and Kishen Pershad Pandey v. Tilucjkdhari Lall 18 C. 182] or granting [Musani mat Amirrunnessa v. Baboo Behary Lall 25 W.R. 529 and Mowla Buksh v. Kishen Peftab Sahi 24 W.R. 150 : 1 C. 102 an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, or for stay of execution [Mohabir Prosad Singh v. Adhikari Kunwar 21 C. 473 and Chitto Sheik v. Muzzur Hossain 2 Hyde. 212] is not a "judgment," plainly stands on a different footing.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Pran Kumar Dey vs Paritosh Sanyal And Ors. on 22 March, 1977

On the other hand, when the Court has refused to stay execution of a decree, on application made, not on the ground that the decree was incapable of execution, but on the ground that as a proceeding to test the validity of the decree was still pending, no execution should be allowed till its termination, it cannot be said that the order does in any way determine a question relating to the rights and liabilities of the parties with reference to the relief granted by the decree. An order of this nature is of an interlocutory character and does not involve, directly or indirectly, an adjudication of the rights and liabilities of the parties, Mohabir Prosad v. Adhikary Kunwar, (1894) ILR 21 Cal 473; Srimantu v. Sri-mantu, (1901) ILR 24 Mad 358; Srinivas Prosad v. Kesho Prosad (1911) 14 Cal LJ 489. We are consequently of the opinion that the order of the Subordinate Judge refusing to stay execution is not an order under Section 47, which has the characteristics of a decree under Section 2 and is appealable as such.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1