Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)The Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Rules, 1947
Article 182 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Virina Soorayya vs Virina Mallayya And Ors. on 25 January, 1955
AIR 1924 Bom 383; Virina Soorayya v. Virina Mallayya, (later followed by the same High Court in Brahmiah v. Chelavapilla Setti, ) and Arumugha Bhakthar v. Narasimha Iyengar, .
Section 15 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Mahadev Vasudeo vs Janaksingh Saigal on 14 October, 1953
"But whatever the position of the judgment-debtor of the decree attached might be, it is clear that as far as the holder of the decree attached is concerned an order passed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 must operate as a stay of execution. He would be prevented from executing the decree and receiving from his judgment-debtor the amount due under the decree, and the stay can only be got over provided the conditions of executing the decree laid down in sub-rule (2) are carried out, and that is that he must make an application for execution and the net proceeds in satisfaction of the decree are applied to the credit of the decree sought to be executed."
Saroj Ranjan Sinha And Ors. vs Joy Durga Dasi on 6 June, 1933
(18) However, there is a later decision of the said Court reported in Saroj Ranjan Sinha v. Joy Dura Dassi, AIR 1934 Cal.140 wherein their Lordships held that
"an attachment order in favour of the judgment-debtor has not the effect of staying the execution permanently. It does not prevent the decree-holder from applying for execution of his decree for money after allowing the decree of the judgment-debtor against him to be set off". The contention raised in that case was that the effect of the attachment before judgment brought about at the instance of the appellant was to arrest or stay the execution of the decree of the decree-holder. Their Lordships negatived this contention by pointing out that it is open to both the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder to execute the decree which was the subject matter of execution and therefore the attachment does not operate as a stay. Though they have not referred to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet, they, in terms, stated that since both the attaching creditor and the decree-holder are entitled to execute the decree, the order of attachment does not operate as a stay.
Cherukuru Brahmiah vs Kurapati Chelavapilla Setti And Ors. on 12 November, 1963
AIR 1924 Bom 383; Virina Soorayya v. Virina Mallayya, (later followed by the same High Court in Brahmiah v. Chelavapilla Setti, ) and Arumugha Bhakthar v. Narasimha Iyengar, .
T.P. Arumugha Bhakthar vs K. Narasimha Iyengar And Anr. on 11 November, 1960
AIR 1924 Bom 383; Virina Soorayya v. Virina Mallayya, (later followed by the same High Court in Brahmiah v. Chelavapilla Setti, ) and Arumugha Bhakthar v. Narasimha Iyengar, .