Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Sheikh Yusuf vs Jyotish Chandra Banerjee And Ors. on 29 July, 1931

Sailendra Nath Bhattachrjee vs Bijan Lal Chakravarty And Ors. on 10 August, 1944

16. The decision in Sk. Yusuf v. Jyotish Chandra seems to us to be perfectly sound. We cannot subscribe to any general proposition of law that a judgment against the lessor will always bind the lessee even though the lease was created prior to the institution of the suit. The learned advocate for the appellant has laid stress upon the fact that the sub-lessee here was given a permanent right by the lessee and was non-ejectible at his pleasure. That by itself, in our opinion, would not make any difference if in a judgment properly obtained it is held that the superior interest was not permanent and has been duly determined by a notice to quit.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 13 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Anish Rameshbhai Patel And Anr. vs Abbasbhai Mahmadali Vania And Anr. on 20 August, 2002

As already noted, in the Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sheikh Yusuf v. Jyotish Chandra AIR 1932 Cal. 241 (supra), such an application, purpoted to have been made under Section 151, Civil P.C., was entertained, and the execution was proceeded with after holding the appellant-objector to be bound by the decree. The executing Court, therefore, was wrong in holding that such an application cannot lie."
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vidya Charan Shukla vs Tamil Nadu Olympic Association And ... on 3 January, 1991

It may be that if the opposite party No. 2 is a tenant of opposite party No. 1, as he claims to be, the order may have been binding on him in certain circumstances under R. 35 of O. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as was held in Yusuf v. Jyotish Chandra Banerji, (1932) ILR 59 Cal 739 : (AIR 1932 Cal 241). But this would not make the Order an Order on the opposite party No. 2 for the order is binding on him only in the sense that it may have been executed by removing him from possession notwithstanding that he was no party to the proceeding in which the order was made. This therefore is not a case in which the opposite party No. 2 can be said to have committed contempt by disobeying an order of Court."
Madras High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vidya Charan Shukla vs Tamil Nadu Olympic Association And ... on 3 January, 1991

It may be that if the opposite party No. 2 is a tenant of opposite party No. 1, as he claims to be, the order may have been binding on him in certain circumstances under R. 35 of O. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as was held in Yusuf v. Jyotish Chandra Banerji, (1932) ILR 59 Cal 739 : (AIR 1932 Cal 241). But this would not make the Order an Order on the opposite party No. 2 for the order is binding on him only in the sense that it may have been executed by removing him from possession notwithstanding that he was no party to the proceeding in which the order was made. This therefore is not a case in which the opposite party No. 2 can be said to have committed contempt by disobeying an order of Court."
Madras High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 69 - Full Document

Dhami Navnitbhai Amratlal And Ors. vs Bhagvanlal Chhaganlal And Anr. on 4 July, 1977

In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio in Yusuf v. Jyotish Chandra . In fact the proposition emerges that where some one claims under judgment-debtor he can be removed irrespective of the fact whether he is a party to the suit. For the purpose of executing a decree for possession mortgagee would be a judgment-debtor who is bound to return possession, once mortgage money is paid. Position will be reverse till mortgage money is not paid and the decree is executed for recovering mortgage money. Once mortgage money is paid and mortgagor judgment debtor becomes entitled to recover possession, he becomes a decree holder and at that stage, the tenant inducted by the mortgagee with possession holds title under the mortgagee in possession. Decree for possession is against the mortgagee in possession. In such a suit tenant is not a necessary party and decree would be binding on him and can be executed through Court and it would be all the more so because the tenant being a tenant of urban immovable property and was inducted by the mortgagee with possession, he is not entitled to protection of Rent Act. Therefore, the decree can be straightway executed against him and he can be removed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - D A Desai - Full Document

P.K. Kripalani vs Mahabir Ram And Anr. on 6 September, 1951

It may be that if the opposite party No. 2 is a tenant of opposite party No. 1, as he claims to be, the order may have been binding on him in certain circumstances under Rule 35 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as was held in 'YUSUF v. JYOTISH CHANDRA' 59 Cal 739. But this would not make the order an order on the opposite party No. 2 for the order is binding on him only in the sense that it may have been executed by removing him from possession notwithstanding that he was no party to the proceeding in which the order was made. This therefore is not a case in which the opposite party No. 2 can be said to have committed contempt by disobeying an order of Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next