Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.65 seconds)British Transport Co. Ltd. vs Suraj Bhan And Ors. on 15 January, 1962
In British Transport Co. Ltd. (supra), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court while referring to Sections 51, 46, Order 21 Rule 46 C.P.C. held as follows:
Begg, Dunlop And Co. vs Jagannath Marwari on 28 June, 1911
In the case covered by the above decision, the decree-holder made an application for execution of the decree in Burdwan Court and applied for an order of attachment of a sum of Rs. 6,750/- out of the amount alleged to be due to the judgment-debtor from Begg Dunlop & Co., which was carrying on business in the town of Calcutta. The Subordinate Judge issued a prohibitory order under Order 21, Rule 46 CPC, 1908. Against the prohibitory order, an objection was filed by the judgment debtor and the garnishee on the ground that the Burdwan Court had no jurisdiction to attach the money in their hands, as they carried their business in Calcutta and the debt was payable outside its jurisdiction. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled the objection and allowed the execution to proceed. Against the said decision, the objectors moved the High Court and the High Court of Calcutta gave the above ruling setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge.
Section 16 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Renuka Batra vs Grindlays Bank Ltd. And Ors. on 11 February, 1980
In Kumari Renuka Batra v. Grindlays Bank Limited, , a Single Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows:
Satyapriya Banerjee vs Kundanmull Babu on 27 January, 1939
In the case covered by the above decision, the Subordinate Judge, Rajshahi made the judgment-debtor liable to have his pay attached under Order 21, Rule 48 C.P.C. and directed the Accountant General of Bengal to remit Rs. 50/- per month from out of the monthly salary of the judgment-debtor and remit the same until the amount under the decree is satisfied. The Judgment Debtor appealed against that order contending that the salary of the judgment-debtor payable to him within Calcutta as an M.L.A. cannot be attached by a Judge at Rajshahi and an order made under Order 21, Rule 46 cannot bind the Accountant General.
M.A.A. Raoof vs K.G. Lakshmipathi on 9 July, 1968
In M.A.A. Raoof v. K.G. Lakshmipathi, , a Single Bench of the Madras High Court while referring to Order 21 Rule 46 C.P.C. held that the Executing Court can attach shares of a company whose places of business is outside the jurisdiction of the Executing Court, when the judgment debtor is residing within the jurisdiction of that Court.
1