Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)
Ramanath Karmakar vs Sheikh Asanulla on 11 February, 1930 cites

Ashutosh Nandi And Anr. vs Kundal Kamini Dasi And Ors. on 15 March, 1929

I am however unable to assent to the view if that was meant to be expressed in the case of Ashutosh Nandi v. Kundal Kamini Dasi that the applicability of the section may depend upon the character of the question simple or complicated that may arise for consideration. If the case comes within the purview of the section, no matter whether;the question is simple or complicated, it will have to be determined on an application made under it, and a separate suit would be barred. But the appellant can gain nothing even on the limited view that I am inclined to take of the scope of Section 144, Civil P.C., because it was clearly the duty of the Court to proceed under Section 151, Civil P. C, and give the respondent the most complete relief in the shape of restitution. Whether under, the one section or under the other, the right order has now been passed by the Court of appeal below, and there is no reason why. it should be interfered with.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bommadevara Naganna Naidu vs Ravi Venkatappayya on 28 June, 1923

30 approved by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Bommadevara Naganna Naidu v. Ravi Venkatappayya A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 167 upon which the decision of the learned Judges in Ashutosh Nandi v. Kundal Kamini Dasi is based, were made in a case in which the decree previously passed was not directly superseded by a subsequent decree but was superseded by the operation of a decree passed in another suit, a case in which the subsequent decree had not "the legal effect of annulling or altering ipso facto" the previous decree and pointed reference was therefore made to the English rule as laid down in Marriot v. Hampton 7 Term. Rep. 269 applicable to cases where decrees and judgments remained in force. In one part of his judgment Garth, C. J., remarked that in the case before him, a review of judgment would not only have been the most complete and the most appropriate and unobjectionable remedy, thus indicating the proper procedure in a case where the previous decree had not been annulled but remained in force. The observations of Garth, C. J., referred to above, do not in my opinion stand in the way of the interpretation I am inclined to give to Section 144. If Section 144 applied to the case before us, as in my opinion it did, the necessity for determination of question of claim and counterclaim, complicated or simple, should not stand in the way of the application of the respondent before us being investigated on its merits. As the learned Additional Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal in the lower Court has said, the inquiry on the application could not be avoided on that ground.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Rai Charan Bhuiya And Ors. vs Debi Prosad Bhakut on 3 August, 1921

8. Apart however from the question of applicability of Section 144 which has been discussed above, the present case on appeal before us may very well be disposed of as one coming under Section 151, Civil P.C. There can be no doubt it is open to a Court, in the execise of its inherent power, to make an order for restitution for the purpose of doing justice between the parties concerned, even in a case which may not come within the terms of Section 144. As has been observed by Mookerjee, J., in Rai Charan Bhuiya v. Debi Prosad Bhakat A.I.R. 1922 Cal 28 the difficulty in the exercise of the inherent power of the Court, when there is an express provision to the contrary in the Code itself, cannot possibly arise, inasmuch as Section 144 does not purport to define the power of the Court so far as restitution is concerned.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1