Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.36 seconds)Section 321 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Article 372 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ved And Sopher vs R.P. Wagle And Co. on 19 January, 1925
35. We may incidentally also point out that the decision in Shippey v. Grey (1880) 49 L.J.C.P. 524 which was relied on by the learned Judge in Ved & Sopher v. Wagle & Co. was distinguished by Lord Goddard in the decision in James Bibby Ld. v. Woods and Howard, at p. 4ยป54 on this very point by saying,
...But in that case (Shippey v. Grey) the solicitor had applied for a charging order and it had been, as the Court of Appeal held, wrongfully refused. The Court of Appeal decided therefore that, since the solicitor ought to have been granted a charging order when he applied for it, he was in the same position for all purposes as if the charging order had been made. His claim could not be defeated because a court had not made the order which it ought to have made. That is the whole explanation, I think, of that case.
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
Tyabji, Dayabhai And Co. vs Jetha Devji And Co. on 9 March, 1927
In Tyabji Dayabhai & Co. v. Jetha Devji & Co. also a charging order was obtained but it was obtained on September 27, 1926, after the attaching creditor had attached the decree on September 25, 1926, but on the date on which the charging order was passed the fund charged was still in Court and therefore a charging order could be passed. This is clear from the facts stated at page 1198. The case, at the most, establishes that a charging order may be obtained by a solicitor even after a fund is attached in execution by another creditor of his client so long as the fund is still in Court, a position with which we are not concerned in this case. In the present case, however, no order whatsoever has been obtained. We do not think therefore that either of these two cases can apply in the present case. We do not think, therefore, that any lien has arisen in favour of the solicitors in the present case. Therefore, no question of any lien of theirs competing with the common law right of the State which we have shown has a preferential right, can arise, nor does any question of considering the relative preference between the solicitors and the State arose in this case.
Bank Of India vs John Bowman And Ors. on 2 December, 1954
Now, all the decisions to which we have referred, including the decision in Secy. of State for India v. Bombay Landing & Shipping Co. and the decision of this Court in Bank of India v. Bowman, clearly laid down that in the State of Bombay at least the doctrine that the State has priority in respect of payment of its debts as against all unsecured creditors of the same debtor does prevail. Therefore, that would be the law in force "for the time being". Thus, by the express provisions of Section 217 of the Indian Succession Act the doctrine is saved and is applicable and we have already shown that it cannot be held to be abrogated or modified by the provisions of Section 321 or Section 323. We do not think therefore that there is anything in the Indian Succession Act that has taken away, modified or abrogated any part of the doctrine,
Superintendent & Legal ... vs Corporation Of Calcutta on 7 December, 1966
In view of this we do not think that we can extend the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of W.B. v. Corpn. of Calcutta, to apply to this right of the State, as urged by counsel. That ease merely decided that the doctrine which hitherto prevailed in India that the Crown was not bound by its statute, cannot apply in India under a democratic Constitution. That principle is clearly distinct and separate from the principle that the Crown has priority in respect of its debts as against the other creditors of the same debtor. We have shown that the very basis of the two principles is different.
Murli Tahilram vs T. Asoomal & Co. on 11 February, 1955
We stress this point here because Mr. Chhatrapati had referred to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Murli v. Asoomal & Co. , to suggest that "there is no universal claim to priority for State debts" vide para. 30 at page 430, with which remark we are not in agreement. We will advert to this decision a little later.