Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.18 seconds)
Jatindra Mohan Banerjee And Ors. vs Kali Charan Alias Kalipada Sarkar And ... on 26 February, 1960 cites

Raghunath Das vs Sundar Das Khetri on 18 May, 1914

8. Reference has been made to Raghunath Das v. Sundar Das, reported in 41 Ind App 251: (AIR 1914 PC 129) where it has been held that the official assignee in whom the estate of the insolvent judgment-debtor vested could apply; he was not the legal representative but the definition of the words 'legal representative' was not there in the old Code. That means even though the official assignee was not a party to the decree because the estate came to him, he was the representative whether there was death or not. But no estate of the parties devolved on the objectors. The result according to the objectors respondents is that the decree cannot be executed against themselves.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 116 - Full Document

Sm. Saila Bala Dassi vs Sm. Nirmala Sundari Dassi And Another on 14 February, 1958

In a case between Saila Bala Dassi v. Nirmala Sundari Dassi, in an appeal from this Court it has been stated that it should be considered much liberally so as to advance justice and not in a restricted or technical sense. The reason is that if read in a technical or a restricted sense, then the difficulty would be that the persons who are really entitled to the benefits of a decree or persons who are really burdened by a decree would escape the benefit or a liability under the decree and, therefore, the decrees would be in-fructuous and that is the reason why the Supreme Court has considered that the provisions should be read not in a restricted sense nor in a technical sense.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 165 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Kodia Goundar And Anr. vs Velandi Goundar And Ors. on 24 September, 1954

11. I have been referred to the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court as reported in Kodia Goundar v. Velandi Goundar, (S) . According to the decision of the Madras High Court, such a decree is not executable against a person who was not a party on the record. The Madras High Court has referred to the relevant rules in England and also to certain English cases, but the very principle referred to in those rules as well as the decisions of the Kings Bench, the very decisions show that they do not encourage suits in a representative capacity, but our Code of Civil Procedure not merely provides for such suit but goes further and states in Section 11 of the Code that this should be res judicata even against persons whose names do not appear on the record. Therefore the definite law in our country is contradictory to the principles laid down in the English cases as well as to their rules. There are two other decisions of Indian High Courts -- one of Lahore and the other of Allahabad.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

Mool Chandra Jain vs Jagdish Chandra Joshi on 24 August, 1954

The Madras High Court had not the opportunity of considering the Allahabad case but they disposed of the Lahore case with a very few words and, therefore, I shall go into the principle in support of the decisions underlying the cases reported in (S) and AIR 1942 Lah 136. In my opinion, there is no doubt that a decree cannot ordinarily be executed against a person who is not a party to the decree. Therefore, so far as that broad principle is concerned, I agree most respectfully with the view taken by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court but what I say more is that such a person may be brought on the record and having been brought on the record, he would become a party to the decree or to the execution case and the decree would then be executed. The processes by which such a person could be brought on the record and then execution levied will be discussed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - R Dayal - Full Document
1