Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.42 seconds)
Uma Shankar Mehrotra vs Kanodia Brothers And Anr. on 18 February, 1965 cites

Bhagvan Manaji Marwadi vs Hiraji Premaji Marwadi on 15 January, 1932

15. Even though Order XXI, Rule 50(2), C. P. C. has not been amended by the Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Lahore and Sind High Courts, they have expressed the view that an application under Order XXI, Rule 50(2), C. P. C. shall be governed by Article 182 of the Limitation Act or can be made for so long as the decree against the firm is capable of execution. (See AIR 1949 Cal 113 (supra); Ramnath Goenka v. Amarchand, AIR 1954 Bom 208; Bhagwan Manaji v. Hiraji Premaji, AIR 1932 Bom 516, Kuppuswami Ayyar v. Rathilal Somabhai and Co., AIR 1935 Mad 926; AIR 1931 Lah 736 (supra) and Seoomal Khemchand v. Lahnibai, AIR 1939 Sind 161 (FB)).
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Ramnath Goenka vs Amarchand And Mangaldas on 20 August, 1953

15. Even though Order XXI, Rule 50(2), C. P. C. has not been amended by the Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Lahore and Sind High Courts, they have expressed the view that an application under Order XXI, Rule 50(2), C. P. C. shall be governed by Article 182 of the Limitation Act or can be made for so long as the decree against the firm is capable of execution. (See AIR 1949 Cal 113 (supra); Ramnath Goenka v. Amarchand, AIR 1954 Bom 208; Bhagwan Manaji v. Hiraji Premaji, AIR 1932 Bom 516, Kuppuswami Ayyar v. Rathilal Somabhai and Co., AIR 1935 Mad 926; AIR 1931 Lah 736 (supra) and Seoomal Khemchand v. Lahnibai, AIR 1939 Sind 161 (FB)).
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - B P Sinha - Full Document

A.H.S. Kuppuswami Ayyar vs Rathilal Somabhai And Co. And Ors. on 8 April, 1935

15. Even though Order XXI, Rule 50(2), C. P. C. has not been amended by the Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Lahore and Sind High Courts, they have expressed the view that an application under Order XXI, Rule 50(2), C. P. C. shall be governed by Article 182 of the Limitation Act or can be made for so long as the decree against the firm is capable of execution. (See AIR 1949 Cal 113 (supra); Ramnath Goenka v. Amarchand, AIR 1954 Bom 208; Bhagwan Manaji v. Hiraji Premaji, AIR 1932 Bom 516, Kuppuswami Ayyar v. Rathilal Somabhai and Co., AIR 1935 Mad 926; AIR 1931 Lah 736 (supra) and Seoomal Khemchand v. Lahnibai, AIR 1939 Sind 161 (FB)).
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1