Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.17 seconds)Sait Punnamchand Chatraban, Firm Of ... vs Vijjapu Satyanandam on 16 February, 1933
Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, placed reliance on the decisions in Punnamchand Chatraban v. Vijjapu Satyanandan (AIR 1933 Madras 804), Subramania Iyer v. Sankaran Unni (AIR 1953 T.C. 213), K. Subbayyamma v. P. Bangarraju (AIR 1961 A.P. 422), V.T. Veerappa Chettiar v. P.S. Palaniappa Chettiar (AIR 1973 Madras 313) and (AIR 1984 A.P. 277).
Article 127 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Limitation Act, 1963
Megraj Iswaradas vs The Corporation Of Madras on 9 April, 1936
Reference was also made to the decisions in Megaraj Iswardas v. Corporation of Madras (AIR 1936 Madras 797), Ramchandra Yeshwant Shringarpure v. Digambar Tejiram Pardeshi (AIR 1960 Bom. 230).
Ramchandra Yeshwant Shringarpure vs Digambar Tejiram Pardeshiu And Ors. on 15 April, 1959
Reference was also made to the decisions in Megaraj Iswardas v. Corporation of Madras (AIR 1936 Madras 797), Ramchandra Yeshwant Shringarpure v. Digambar Tejiram Pardeshi (AIR 1960 Bom. 230).
V.T. Veerappa Chettiar vs P.S. Palaniappa Chettiar on 26 September, 1972
In V.T. Veerappa Chettiar's case, supra (AIR 1973 Madras 313) the court has held that an application for execution of a decree should be taken in the court which received and held the assets. It was also held that Section 73 cannot be construed so as to enable all the decree holders, irrespective of their applications in different courts, to claim the benefit since the court which has received and held the assets may not know the number of application in various courts.
1