Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (1.61 seconds)
In The Matter Of Ovation International ... vs Adverts (Private) Ltd. And Anr. on 5 October, 1968 cites

Meyyappa Chettiar vs Chidambaram Chettiar on 17 December, 1923

The question again came up for consideration before another Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Meyyappa Chettiar v. Chidambaram Chettiar ((1924) I.L.R. 47 Mad. 483 (F.B.)). The question referred to the Full Bench was whether Order XXI, rule 57, applies to property attached before judgment, when there has been a decree followed by an execution petition for the purpose of bringing the attached property to sale. Under Order XXI, rule 57, where a property has been attached in execution of a decree but by reason of the decree-holder's default the court is unable to proceed further with the application for execution, it may either dismiss the application or for sufficient reason adjourn the proceedings to a future date and if it dismisses the application, the attachment ceases. If, therefore, Order XXI, rule 57, applied to the case of property attached before judgment, then upon the dismissal under Order XXI, rule 57, of an application for sale in execution of the attached property, the attachment would cease. The majority held that when a decree-holder files an application for execution asking for sale of the attached property, the attachment before judgment automatically becomes an attachment in execution. Schwabe C.J., who along with Wallace J. differed from the majority, was of the view that there was nothing in the Code to justify the view that property which had been attached before judgment became property attached in execution and ceased to be property attached before judgment once proceedings were taken to bring that property to sale in execution. According to the minority view, Order XXXVIII, rule 11, provided no more than that when once a property had been attached before judgment, there need be no attachment in execution for the purpose of selling the property as the court by reason of the attachment before judgment had got control over the property and could proceed with the sale.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 43 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next