Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Section 35 in The Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1933
Section 3 in The Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Maniruddin Ahmed vs Umaprasanna Mukherjee on 21 September, 1959
Guha and Banerjee, JJ., expressed much to the
same effect in Maniruddin Ahmed v.
Umaprasanna(2) thus, at p. 30:
Manindra Chandra Nandi vs Provas Chandra Mitter And Ors. on 13 November, 1923
-Gupta and Mallick, JJ., in the decision now under appeal
and agreed with the view expressed by Akram and
Chakravartii, JJ., in Manidra Chandra v. Jagdish Chandra
(2). The said decisions are in accord with the view we have
expressed earlier. The contrary view is sustained by the
High Court in the present case on the principle that the
sale held in contravention of the provisions of s. 35 of
the Act was a nullity and, therefore, no question of setting
aside the sale within the meaning of O. XXI, r. 90 of the
Code of Civil Procedure would arise. This raises the
question whether such a sale is a nullity. If a provision
of a statute is only directory, an act done in contravention
of the provision is manifestly not a nullity. Section 35 of
the Act is couched in a mandatory form and it casts in terms
a duty on the court to comply with its
(1) (1959) 64 C.W.N. 20.
1