Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)
Shakir Husain vs Chandoo Lal And Ors. on 22 July, 1931 cites

Badri Prasad vs Chokhey Lal on 22 April, 1926

39, The first is that we have been pressed with the decision in Badri Prasad v. Chokhe Lal. In that case cloth was attached and handed over to the custody of one Badri Prasad. The commissioner made a report to the Court stating that he had made over the property to Badri Prasad and had completed the performance of the task allotted to him. It was found by the learned Judges, and this was largely the basis of their eventual decision, that the commissioner i. e. the attaching officer, did not ask for or obtain any "permission." At a later date Badri Prasad appears to have endeavoured to hand over his responsibilities to another person who is at p. 563 of the report referred to as the custodian and who died. But the Courts below naturally would not recognize Badri Prasad's right to so hand over his responsibilities, and he was treated as the person to whom the property had been entrusted. Eventually the suit in which the attachment was made was dismissed, but the attaching officer failed to secure the return of the property. Badri Prasad objected that he was not responsible to the Court as he was not an officer of the Court; but a decree was passed against him. Badri Prasad then came to this Court in civil revision making Chokhe Lal, the decree-holder, the opposite party. The Court considered that the attaching officer should also be a party, and after having so made him a party eventually set aside the decree passed against Badri Prasad and substituted therefor a decree making the attaching officer liable for the loss. "We are not told in the report how the property came to be lost.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Badri Prasad And Ors. vs Gopal Bihari Lal And Ors. on 21 March, 1919

41. The Court went on then to hold that he attaching officer was the only person able. I am unable to assent to the correctness of this decision either as to she immunity conferred upon the surety or as to the liability imposed upon the attaching officer. The rule really applicable was Rule 122. The permission, of the Court required by Rule 123 is permission to appoint a sahana or sahanas. Neither in the case of Badri Prasad v. Chohke Lal, nor in the present ease, is there any question of the appointment of a sahana. I think therefore that both in that case and in the present ease the attaching officer was free from responsibility the moment his actions when reported to the Court had bean approved, and I do not think that it is necessary that such approval should be expressed by the use of particular words. It is sufficient if it can be properly deduced from any order passed by or other action of the Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Madho Prasad And Anr. vs Pearey Lal And Anr. on 25 January, 1921

In the case of Madho Prasad v. Peary Lal A.I.R. 1921 All. 220 a similar question arose. The Court below held that the supurddar was liable under the provision of Section 145, Civil P. C, as the person who had guaranteed that the attached property would be forthcoming when demanded, or at any rate, under the inherent power of the Court, which had a right to demand the property from the man in whose custody it had been placed by an officer of the Court. A learned Judge of this Court, who heard an application in revision against that order, upheld the decision of the Court below on the ground that Section 145 applied. In my opinion, Section 145 (c) does apply. It appears that when a man comes forward of his own free will and accord to take charge of property attached, and undertakes to make a restitution of the same, he is the person liable as if the decree had been made against him. Again, if for any reason which is not clear to me, it should be said that Section 145 is not applicable, I do not see why we should not hold the man who has appeared in the execution proceedings, to take charge of the goods, responsible for the value of the goods. He gets a chance to show cause why he should not hand over the goods or pay their value, and this is all that is needed for his liability.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1