Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.31 seconds)The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 45 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Siri Ram And Ors. vs Jagan Nath And Ors. on 15 October, 1956
The same view was expressed by Kapur, J., in Siri Ram v. Jagan Nalh, (S) .
Jatindra Mohan Chakravarti And Ors. vs Sir Bojoy Chand Mahatab on 29 June, 1922
In support of his contention, the decision cited by Mr. Raikar was that of the High Court of Calcutta in Jotindra Mohan Tagore v. Bejoy Chand Mahatap, ILR 32 Cal 483. That decision, it appears to me, proceeded on the peculiar iacts of that case. That was a case in which in a suit for partition, after a decree for partition was made an application was made under the provisions of Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure then in force for the addition of a party.
Kishori Mohan Pal vs Provash Chandra Mondal And Ors. on 25 July, 1922
In Kishori Mohan v. Provash Chandra, AIR 1924 Cal 351, their Lordships of the High Court of Calcutta took the view that in the case of a decree for partition limitation ran from the date of the decree as provided by Article 182 of the Limitation Act and that where such decree was not engrossed on non-judicial stamped paper of the requisite value, the date on which the judgment is pronounced is the date on which such limitation begins to run although no formal decree could bo drawn up in such suit until the paper bearing the proper stamp under Article 45 of the Stamp Act is supplied to the Court. That was a case in which the decree bore the date March 25, 1914. The application for its execution was made on July 21, 1920. It appears that the decree was signed by the Judge on January 2, 1920 on which date the decree-holder supplied the stamped paper on which it had to be engrossed.