Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)
Chirala Buchi Reddi vs Satti Savitramma on 17 August, 1960 cites

S. Srinivasa Ayyar And Anr. vs Lakshmi Ammal Alias Yogambal Ammal And ... on 27 September, 1927

5. Before our brother, Sanjeeva Bow Nayudu J., not only the decision of but also the decision of Srinivasa Ayyar v. Lakshmi Ammal, ILR 56 Mad 343 : (AIR 1933 Mad 33 (1)) were cited for the proposition that the respondent was not entitled to proceed with the execution unless and until the charged property has been exhausted or where the judgment-debtor shows that the decree-holder's application is mala fide and oppressive and not made for legitimate purposes, the Court may in its discretion refuse the decree-holder's application and compel her to pursue her remedy against the security. The first or these decisions, which is by Mack, J. sitting singly, was distinguished on the ground that it did not relate to a compromise decree and the observations in the second one, which is of a Division Bench were dissented from.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Gundavarapu Seshamma vs Kornepati Venkata Narasimha Rao And ... on 16 November, 1939

"These observations in our opinion, overlook the fundamental principles bearing on the law of precedents namely that a Full Bench decision must be regarded as good law and binding on all single and division benches, until a fuller bench had decided contrary to the decision of the Full Bench." After referring to the observations of Leach, C.J. in Seshamma v. Narasimha Rao, 1940-1 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Dr. K.C. Nambiar vs State Of Madras By Its Chief Secretary ... on 19 August, 1952

LJ 400 : (AIR 1940 Mad 356) and the observations of Subba Rao, C. J. (as he then was) in K. C. Nambiar v. The State of Madras, (and not M. K. Chengalroya Chetti v. Special Deputy Collector, , as referred to in 1960 Andh. LT 357), and reiterated by him in (FB) Sanjeeva Row Nayudu J. dissented from the observations made in ILR 55 Mad 676: (AIR ''1932 .Mad 664) as regards the binding and operative character of the decision in I.L.R. 12 Mad. 168 (F.B.).
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

M.K. Chengalroya Chetti vs The Special Deputy Collector For Land ... on 24 July, 1952

LJ 400 : (AIR 1940 Mad 356) and the observations of Subba Rao, C. J. (as he then was) in K. C. Nambiar v. The State of Madras, (and not M. K. Chengalroya Chetti v. Special Deputy Collector, , as referred to in 1960 Andh. LT 357), and reiterated by him in (FB) Sanjeeva Row Nayudu J. dissented from the observations made in ILR 55 Mad 676: (AIR ''1932 .Mad 664) as regards the binding and operative character of the decision in I.L.R. 12 Mad. 168 (F.B.).
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

S.A. Ramanathan Chettiar vs M.P. Kasi Chettiar Alias Meyyappa ... on 2 November, 1942

That apart, there is nothing in the Code which prevents the Court from directing the decree-holder Io execute and satisfy his decree from any particular property situate either within its local limits or outside. (See Section 38 C.P.C.). I Under Section 39 C.P.C. the court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decree-holder, send it for execution to another court. The power given under this section is permissive and not mandatory. It is discretionary. (See Ramanathan v. Kasi. AIR 1944 Mad 73). It cannot be said that there is no discretion vested in the Court under any circumstances.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next