Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (4.05 seconds)Section 51 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 11 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K. Karunakar Shetty vs Syndicate Bank, Manipal on 28 November, 1988
10. Reliance was also placed in K.KARUNAKAR CHETTY V. SINDICATE BANK 5; VISWANATHAN V. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED 6; MUKRAM V. HARDIP SINGH 7; and A.VENKAT RAO V. JAGAN MOHAN 8; for the purpose of substantiating the contentions raised by the revision petitioner.
Article 2 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 3 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 58 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Jolly George Verghese & Anr vs The Bank Of Cochin on 4 February, 1980
In JOLLY GEORGE VARGHESE V. BANK OF COCHIN 1 the Apex Court had observed as follows:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sunil Batra Etc vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978
" Equally meaningful is the import of Art.21 of the Constitution in the context of imprisonment for non payment of debts. The high value of human dignity and the worth of the human person enshrined in art.21, read with arts. 14 and `9, obligates the State not to incarcerate except under law which is fair, just and reasonable in its procedural essence. Maneka Gandhi's case as developed further in Sunil Batra V. Delhi Administration 1978 (4) SCC 494, Sitaram V.State of U.P. and Sunil Batra V. Delhi Administration W,O,Bi, 1009 of 1979 d/- 20-12-1979 ( SC) lays down the proposition. It is too obvious to need elaboration that to cast a person I prison because of his poverty and consequent inability to meet his contractual liability is appalling. To be poor in this land of Daridra Narayana ( land of poverty ) is no crime and to recover by the procedure of putting one in prison is too flagrantly violative of Art.21 unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of his willful failure to pay in spite of his sufficient means and absence of more terribly pressing claims on his means such as medical bills to treat cancer or other grave illness. Unreasonableness and unfairness in such a procedure is inferable from Art.11 of the Covenant. But this is precisely the interpretation we have put on the proviso to S.51 C.P.C and lethal blow of Art.21 cannot strike down the provision, as now interpreted.