Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 138 (2.54 seconds)
Documents citing Lalji Raja & Sons vs Firm Hansraj Nathuram on 23 February, 1971

Thyssen Stahlunion Gmbh Etc vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd on 7 October, 1999

In the case of Lalji Raja Sons v. Firm Hansraj Nathuram, [1971] 1 SCC 721 this Court had said that "a provision to preserve the right accrued under a repealed Act was not intended to preserve the abstract rights conferred by the repealed Act. It only applies to specific rights given to an individual upon happening of one or the other of the events specified in statute."
Supreme Court of India Cites 100 - Cited by 210 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Trilok Chand Jain vs Dagi Ram Pindi Lall And Ors. on 14 December, 1973

(27) Mr. Watel, learned counsel for the defendants, referred. to the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalji Raja and Sons v. Firm Hansraj Nathuram,.. It is necessary to state the facts in the said case. Lalji Raja and Sons obtained a decree against Firm Hansraj Nathuram in the Court of Sub-Judge, Bankura, West Bengal, on December 3, 1949. On an application by the decree-holder, the Court which passed the decree transferred the decree to the Court of the Additional District Judge at Morena in the then State of Madhya Bharat for execution. The judgment-debtor resisted the execution on the ground that the transferee court had no jurisdiction to execute the decree as it was that of a foreign Court and had" been passed ex parte. The transferee court accepted that contention and dismissed the execution petition on December 29, 1950. On April 1, 1951, the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act. (Act Ii of 1951) came into force, and as a result of that amendment the Indian Code of Civil Procedure was extended to the former State of Madhya Bharat as well as to various other places. Meanwhile, the decree-holders appealed against the order of the transferee court to the High Court 'of Madhya Pradesh which allowed the appeal. On further appeal by the judgment-debtor to the Supreme Court, the order of the transferee Court was restored. The Supreme Court held that the transfer ordered by the Bankura Court was without jurisdiction as on that date the Indian Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to the Morena Court, but it was governed by the said Indian Code of Civil Procedure as adapted by the Madhya Bharat Adaptation Order, 1947, i.e., it was governed by a law passed by the then Madhya Bharat State. The decree-holders again filed an execution application in the Bankura Court on February 15, 1963, praying for the transfer of the decree-again to the Morena Court for execution as by that time. the Indian Code of Civil Procedure had been extended to the Madhya Bharat State. "The transfer was ordered and execution proceedings commenced in the Morena Court. The judgment-debtors again resisted the application on various grounds. The transferee Court rejected the. objections, and an appeal against that. order to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was allowed oil the ground that the decree was not executable as the Court which passed the decree was a foreign Court. The decree-holders preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court, and it was contended before the Supreme Court that in view of section 20 clause (1) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1951. by which the Code was extended to Madhya Bharat and other areas, the judgment-debtors' right to resist the execution of the decree was protected. Section 20(1) of the Act deals with repeals and savings. The relevant portion thereof reads as under "If, immediately before the date on which the said Code comes into force in any Part B State there is in force in that State any law corresponding to the said Code, that law shall on that date stand repealed. Provided that the repeal shall not affect (B) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any law so repealed ..... as if this Act had not been passed." The said provision thus protected the rights acquired and privileges accrued under the law repealed by the amending Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

R.S.Mohanachandran @ Kannan vs Bhavani Amma Pankajakdhi Amma on 11 August, 2010

In Lalji Raja & Sons v. Hansraj Nathuram (supra) it has been held that Sec.48 of the Code (since repealed) was a period of limitation and was controlled by the provisions of Act. It was argued in that case that Sec.48 of the Code prescribed a bar and not a period of limitation and consequently the decree holder cannot take benefit of Sec.14(2) of the Act. The argument was repelled and it W.P(C) No.12651 of 2010 -: 15 :- was held that Sec.48 of the Code prescribed a period of limitation for the application referred to therein. In paragraph 25 it was held, "......These provisions clearly go to indicate that the period prescribed under Sec.48(1) of the Code is a period of limitation. This conclusion of ours is strengthened by the subsequent history of the legislation. By the Limitation Act, 1963, S.48 of the Code is deleted. Its place has been taken by Art.136 of the Limitation Act of 1963."
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - T Joseph - Full Document

Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal vs The Union Of India on 17 December, 2021

“It may be, therefore, that under some repealed enactment a right has been given but that in respect of it some investigation or legal proceedings is necessary. The right is then unaffected and preserved. It will be preserved even if a process of quantification is necessary. But there is a manifest distinction between an investigation in respect of right and an investigation which is to decide whether some right should or should not be given.” The above observation on accrual has been referred to with approval in M.S Shivanda v. KSRTC 13 and Bansidhar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 14 In Lalji Raja Sons v. Firm Hansraj Nathuram 15, a Constitution Bench of this Court affirmed the observations of Atkin L.J in Hamilton Gell (supra) where it was held that only specific rights and not abstract rights would be saved.
Supreme Court of India Cites 94 - Cited by 4 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs National Research Development ... on 24 January, 2023

In Narhari Shivram Shet Narvekar v. Pannalal Umediram [Narhari Shivram Shet Narvekar v. Pannalal Umediram, (1976) 3 SCC 203], this Court, following Lalji Raja [Lalji Raja and Sons v. Firm Hansraj Nathuram, (1971) 1 SCC 721] , held as follows: (SCC p. 207, para 8) "8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant however submitted that since the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable to Goa the decree became inexecutable and this being a vested right could not be taken away by the application of the Code OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 135/2022 Page 29 of 37 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:24.01.2023 13:30:19 Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000475 of Civil Procedure to Goa during the pendency of the appeal before the Additional Judicial Commissioner. It seems to us that the right of the judgment-debtor to pay up the decree passed against him cannot be said to be a vested right, nor can the question of executability of the decree be regarded as a substantive vested right of the judgment-debtor. A fortiori the execution proceedings being purely a matter of procedure it is well settled that any change in law which is made during the pendency of the cause would be deemed to be retroactive in operation and the appellate court is bound to take notice of the change in law."
Delhi High Court Cites 88 - Cited by 1 - Y Varma - Full Document

All India Motor Transport Congress vs Goodyear India Ltd. And Ors. on 10 February, 1975

On the other hand, Mrs. Pappu on behalf of the director has invited our attention to the case of Lalji Raja & Sons v. Firm Hansraj Nathuram, AIR 1971 SC 974 wherein it has been held that the non-executability of a decree within a particular territory, namely, Madhya Bharat, was neither a privilege nor a vested right within the meaning of Section 20(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code amending Act. There are observations in the judgment to indicate that there is no vested right in procedure.
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Cites 30 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Official Assignee And Anr. vs Subhkaran on 2 May, 1973

Mr. Jain, however, urged that the proposition laid down in AIR 1962 SC 1737 has been overruled in Lalji Raja & Sons V. Nathuram, AIR 1971 SC 974. We have perused this decision. We are of the opinion that the decision has not shaken the principle laid down in AIR 1962 SC 1737 so far as the decree passed by title Courts of erstwhile princely States are concerned. In AIR 1971 SC 974, their Lordships were dealing with the executability of the decree passed by the Court of West Bengal, a British Indian territory at that time at Morina in Madhya Bharat It was held that by the extension of the Code of Civil Procedure the whole of India including Madhya Bharat want of jurisdiction on the part of Madhya Pradesh Court to exclude a decree in the British India was remedied. In fact that their Lordships did not overrule the principle laid down in AIR 1962 SC 1737, rather they upheld the principle laid down in it and distinguished it on the ground that the Code of Civil Procedure had been extended to Madhya Pradesh also. It may be profitable to extract the observations of their Lordships as follows:--
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Unna Ram vs Smt. Geeta Devi on 5 July, 2002

In Lalji Raja & Sons v. Firm Hansraj Nathuram , the Apex Court held that a party seeking the benefit of Section 6 of the Act, 1897 has to satisfy that a right had accrued in his favour under the repelled law which has expressly not been taken away by the amending Act. That a provision to preserve the "right accrued" under a repelled Act was not intended to preserve the abstract rights conferred by the repelled Act. It only applies to specific right given to an individual upon happening of one or other of the events specified in the Statute.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next