Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.60 seconds)Section 21 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Devidatt Ramniranjandas vs Shriram Narayandas on 9 September, 1931
Similar was the view taken in Devidatt's case where the Bombay High Court held that Section 21 of the Code would not apply to the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Besides, the prohibition put by Sub-section (3) of Section 21 applies only to an objection if taken in appellate or revisional Court, and not in the executing Court. Here the objection regarding competence of this Court to execute the decree against properties situate outside the local limits of its jurisdiction has been raised by the judgment-debtors in the execution proceeding, though not at the earliest possible opportunity. Hence, in my view, provisions in Section 21 do not help the decree-holder in this case in any manner.
Hari Das Basu vs National Insurance Company, Ltd. on 22 April, 1931
In Hart Das Basu's case again a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
Section 3 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sakti Nath Roy Choudhury vs Jessore United Bank Ltd. (Registered) on 20 January, 1939
In Arati Rani Paul's case a learned single Judge of this Court held that the word "may" in Section 39 of the Code is permissive and not mandatory, and in support of such view reliance was placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sakti Nath Ray Choudhury v. Jessore United Bank Ltd. . The learned Judge, it appears, also distinguished the previous Division Bench decisions of this Court in the cases of Begg, Dunlop and Hari Das Basu. It is to be noted that the full text of this single Bench decision has not been placed before me. It is therefore not possible to ascertain the reasoning of the learned Judge for holding that the word "may" in Section 39 is permissive and not mandatory.
Smt. Uma Kanoria vs Pradip Kumar Daga on 1 October, 2002
In the single Bench decision in Uma Kanoria's case it has been held that Sub-section 4 of Section 39 of the Code removes now all doubts about the lack of power of a Court passing a decree to execute it against any person or property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction.
Merla Ramanna vs Nallaparaju And Others on 4 November, 1955
In Merla Ramanna's case the question was whether on transfer of the subject-matter to another Court subsequent to the decree, the Court passing the decree lost the jurisdiction to execute it; and in this context it was held that such Court would not loose its jurisdiction. The decision does not apply to this case in any manner.