Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.31 seconds)

Aia Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board ... on 5 July, 2004

32. Other instances of a restricted interpretation of the expression "persons aggrieved" are furnished by R. v. Bradford-on-Avon Urban District Council; Ex Parte Boulton, (1964) 2 All ER 492; Gregory v. Camden London Borough Council, (1966) 1 WLR 899; R. v. London O. S.; Ex parte Westminster Corporation (1951) 2 KB 508; Regina v. Cardiff Justices; Ex parte Cardiff Corporation, (1962) 2 QB 436.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Akilandam Ammal vs Indrani And Ors. on 6 December, 1976

4. This was the view taken by a Bench of this Court in Ramanatha Chettiar v. Omanathan Chettiar. (1974) 1 M.L.J. 221. We agree with the view taken by the learned Judges and hold that the contention put forward by the judgment-debtor is right. The appellant will be entitled to a decree for only a sum of Rs. 5,453. The result is that the appeal is dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Poulose vs Shaju on 16 December, 2025

6. Admittedly, the petitioner has not so far filed an application under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question that which court should entertain an application for rateable distribution when the assets are held by one court while the decrees are passed by different courts has O.P.(C)No.606/2016 6 2025:KER:96294 long been a vexed issue. On this aspect, divergent views have been expressed by different High Courts. The Madras High Court, in Chettiar v. Chettiar (AIR 1973 Mad 313), held that an application for execution must be filed before the very court which has realised and is holding the assets, and that failure to do so would disentitle the applicant from claiming rateable distribution.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1