Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)P. S. L. Ramanathan Chettiar & Ors vs O. Rm. P. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar on 4 March, 1968
In the case P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar and Ors., v. O.R.M. P.R.M. Ramanathan (supra) the passages relied upon by Mr. Bachawat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, are set out herein below :-
G. Sundaram Chettiar vs P.A. Valli Ammal on 30 July, 1934
In the case of G. Sundaram Chettiar v. P. A. Valli Ammal (supra) a Division Bench of the Madras High Court pointed out that the provision that an order for stay of execution cannot be made unless the security has been given for the due performance of such decree or the order as made will ultimately be binding upon him, is mandatory.
Srinibas Prosad Singh And Anr. vs Kesho Prosad Singh on 2 March, 1911
In the case of Srinibas Prosad Singh v. Kesho Prosad Singh (Supra), it was a hearing of a Rule issued against the decree holder to show cause why the execution of the decree of the Subordinate Judge against the judgment debtors should not be stayed pending the hearing of as appeal preferred by the petitioner to the High Court against the said decree. This Rule was issued upon an application under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stay of execution of the decree of the court below. At the time the Rule was issued, the Appeal Court also made an order under sub-rule (4) of that Rule for stay of execution pending the hearing of the application. Referring to Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code, the Court observed that each of these three elements is an essential pre-requisite to the grant of an order for stay of execution, and it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself that each of these conditions has been fulfilled before an order is made in favour of the judgment debtor. The Court pointed out that the first question, therefore, was whether the petitioners have satisfied the Court that substantial loss may result to them unless the execution is stayed. The Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had not satisfied the Court to that effect. It is to be pointed out that the said case related to the management of the Court of Wards. The Division Bench observed that it was not appreciated why the decree holder should be kept out of the fruits of his decree if he is prepared to furnish security to do so. It was stated that the policy of the Legislature was that the decree holder is to be allowed to reap the fruits of his decree unless sufficient cause is established for stay of execution. In this context it was observed as follows :-
Article 133 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 134A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 151 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Sm. Bibhabati Devi W/O Kumar Ramendra ... vs Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy And Ors. on 30 June, 1942
In support of his contentions, Mr. Bachawat has relied on the following Division Bench judgments of this Court: Srinibas Prosad Singh v. Kesho Prosed Singh 15 CWN 475 (DB) and Bibhabati Devi v. Ramendra Narayan Roy 41 CWN 374 (DB).
Srinibash Prasad Singh vs Kesho Prasad Singh on 2 March, 1911
Reference in this connection was made to the decision of Srinibash Prasad Singh v. Kesho Prosad Singh (supra) referred to above. It was pointed out that the policy of the Legislature is that the decree-holder should be allowed to reap the fruits of the decree unless sufficient cause is made out. Accordingly, the prayer for stay of execution was refused and it was directed that the execution will proceed, and the amount for security was also- provided if the execution is proceeded with.