Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)
Kalyandas Anantlal vs Gangabai And Ors. on 25 April, 1960 cites

Shashi Bhusan Shaw vs Hari Narain Shaw on 23 February, 1921

"the question whether any particular term in a compromise relates to the suit must be decided from the frame of the suit, the relief claimed, and the relief allowed by lawful agreement. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. Each case is governed by its own facts. This view was adopted liter by Rankin, C. J., in 'Sashi Bhushan Shaw v. Hari Narayan Shaw'. ILR 48 Cal 1059: (AIR 1921 Cal 202). It may be stated that ' as a general rule all the terms which form the consideration for the adjustment of the matters in dispute, whether they form the subject-matter of the suit or not, become related to the suit, and can be embodied in the decree'. Thus, where A sues B on a promissory note, and a compromise is arrived at between the parties whereby B agrees to pay the amount of the note by instalments and the amount is also made a charge on certain immovable property of B, it could not be said the Court was not entitled to make the amount a charge on this property, because the relief claimed was for a money decree only. The charge, though not claimed as a relief, would still be a matter relating to the suit."
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ijjatulla Bhuyan vs Chandra Mohan Banerjee on 29 July, 1907

The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decisions in Ijjatulla Bhuyan v. Chandra Mohan Banerjee, ILR 34 Cal 954, Bhupendra Kumar v. Puma Chandra, 15 Cal WN 506 and Sarat Charan Chose v. Shyam Chand Singh, ILR 39 Cal 663, in support of his contention but in Olphert's case, 9 Nag LR 112 (supra), a Division Bench of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner had expressly dissented from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in ILR 34 Gal 954 (supra) and 15 Cal WN 506 (supra) and observed:
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Bajirao Narhar Peshwa vs Sakharam Balvant Peshwe on 15 October, 1930

"The question whether the terms of a compromise decree go beyond the subject-matter of the suit is one which has to be determined on the 'facts of each particular case with reference to what the claim in the suit was and what was the nature of the compromise. Their Lordships intended to point out that it was not proper for a Court to allow the operative part of a decree to go beyond the actual subject-matter of the existing litigation, and I do not think that their remark that a decree which infringed that rule might be incapable of being executed outside the lands in suit was intended to throw any doubt on the well established view that parties in execution proceedings cannot call in question the validity of the decree. Under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C., 1908, the Court is bound to record a compromise in accordance with the terms 'so far as it relates to the suit.' But where the compromise is plainly outside the suit, it is open to the Court to refuse to incorporate it in the decree. But as observed by Madgavkar J. in Bajirao v. Sakharam, 33 Bom LR 463: (AIR 1931 Bom 295), where, however, it is a consideration of the compromise and therefore intimately connected with it, the words 'relates to the suit' are wide enough to embrace such a term of the compromise, as for instance, the consideration for the compromise even though this consideration may be entirely outside the scope of the suit and relate to property which was never in question in the suit itself.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Gurdeo Singh And Chandrikah Singh vs Chandrikah Singh And Rashbehary Singh on 10 April, 1907

In the latter case, it is settled law that the defect can be waived. In Ex parte Pratt, (1884) 12 QBD 334, and Ex parte May, (1884) 12 QBD 497, it was pointed out that where jurisdiction over the subject-matter exists, requiring only to be invoked in the right way, the party who has invited or allowed the Court to exercise it in a wrong, way cannot afterwards turn round and challenge the legality of the proceedings due to its own invitation or negligence. As stated by Mookerjee, J. in Gurdeo Singh v. Chandrikah Singh, ILR 36 Gal 193 at p. 208:
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 42 - Full Document
1   2 Next