Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.36 seconds)
6 vs S.R. Samson (Air 1931 Rangoon 252) on 1 December, 2011 cites

Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954

28. I shall refer to the decisions which learned Senior Advocate for the judgment debtor has referred to me. The Supreme Court in Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Paswan and Ors. (supra) only dealt with the general law that the issue regarding nullity could be raised even in collateral proceeding whenever C.R.P.No.525 of 2011 and O.P(C).No.3837 of 2011 -: 31 :- the decree is sought to be enforced. But the power of the transferee executing court is limited and circumscribed by the purpose for which the decree is sent to it and as is revealed by the statutory amendment made to Sec.225 of Code of 1882 while incorporating the said provision in Rule 7 of Order XXI of the Code and the wordings of Secs.41 and 42 of the 1908 Code as it is available even after the amendment of 1976.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1029 - Full Document

K.L. Nandakumaran Nair vs K.I. Philip And Ors on 10 September, 2001

The Court expressed agreement with the view taken in Krishnan Nair Vs. Philip (supra) that the duty of the Court which passed the decree to satisfy itself that the decree it is transmitting is a live decree which is still capable of execution and that if the decree is dead for other reasons, the Court which passed it should in the normal circumstance decide the matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Chogalal vs Major Trueman on 13 August, 1883

"The intention of the legislature was that indicated by West,J in Chogalal Vs. Trueman was made clear 25 years later by the alteration of the terms of Sec.225 of the Code of 1882 that was effected when O.21 R.7 of the code of 1908 was enacted............ In the civil procedure code of 1908, in which O.21 R.7 corresponds to S.225 of the Code of 1882, the words "or of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed it" are omitted thus evincing the manifest intention of the legislature that an executing court should not be entitled to question the jurisdiction of the Court that C.R.P.No.525 of 2011 and O.P(C).No.3837 of 2011 -: 18 :- passed the decree of which execution is sought.....".
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Kammela Somasekhara Rao vs Kammela Seshagiri Rao on 21 July, 1959

The other decision which the learned Senior Advocate has referred me is Kammela Somasekhara Rao Vs. Kammela Seshagiri Rao (AIR 1960 AP 321). There, respondent obtained decree against the appellant for recovery of money and the respondent applied for transmission of the decree to the District Court at Eluru where the appellant owned properties. Appellant objected challenging validity of the decree (in the transferor Court itself). The trial court transmitted the C.R.P.No.525 of 2011 and O.P(C).No.3837 of 2011 -: 32 :- decree to the District Court, Eluru. That order was challenged before the Andra Pradesh High Court. The question raised was whether the transferor Court was obliged to decide the objection to the decree before it was transmitted for execution. It was held that as a result of the combined operation of Secs.39 and 42 all objections, whatever their nature may be, bearing on the executability of the decree could be urged before the executing court and Sec.39 does not compel the transferor court to decide questions of limitation or of the like nature before transferring the decree to another. It was held in paragraph 14 that Sec.42 of the Code confers on the executing court all the powers of the Court, which passed the decree and that there is no restriction on the authority of the executing court in that behalf. In other words, they are coeval with those possessed by the Court that passed the decree. The language of Sec.42 does not warrant reading any limitation into the powers of the Court executing transferred decrees.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next