Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
Chunilal Patua And Anr. vs The State Of Assam on 9 January, 1952 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Loke Nath Saha on 1 December, 1950

3. Mr. Dam has relied on--'Union of India v. Loke Nath Saha', AIR 1952 Cal 140 (A) and--'Protap Kumar v. Nagendra Nath', AIR 1951 Cal 511 (B) in suppprt of his contention. These cases are distinguishable on facts but the 'ratio decidendi' adopted in these cases would lend support to his contention. In these circumstances, I see no reason why the contention raised by the learned counsel should not prevail. The decree being against the province of Assam, the State of Assam would remain liable for the satisfaction of the decree for reasons given above.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Dominion Of India vs Hiralal Bothra on 12 May, 1949

The learned Government Advocate contends relying on--'Dominion of India v. Hiralal', AIR 1950 Cal 12 (C) that the Court of the Munsiff at Habiganj became a foreign court from 15-8-1947 and therefore Pakistan, not being a reciprocating territory, the Court at Habiganj became a foreign Court and therefore the provisions of Section 13, Civil P.C. were attracted and the Munsiff at Silchar could not entertain any application for execution of the decree. The decree in this case AIR 1950 Cal 12 (C) was obtained on 15-5-1947 from the Court of the Munsiff at Jamalpur within the district of Mymensingh against the Governor-General of India in Council, New Delhi and B. A. Railway, having its Head Office at 3, Koilaghat Street, Calcutta. On 8-12-1947, the decree-holder applied to the Court of the Munsiff, Jamalpur under Order 21, Rule 6, Civil P.C. for a certificate of non-satisfaction. The certificate was issued and a copy of the order was, as applied for by the decree-holder, directed by the Munsiff at Jamalpur to be sent to the Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, with a copy of the decree. On 13-3-1948, the decree-holder filed an application for execution of the decree so transferred in the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta. The Dominion of India resisted the execution. It would be noticed that no proceedings were pending on 15-8-1947. in the Jamalpur Court or in the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta. Therefore the only question to which the learned Judges in that case addressed themselves was whether after the appointed day, viz., 15-8-1947, it was competed for the Calcutta Court to entertain an application for starting proceedings in execution of a decree which had been passed by the Jamalpur Court before the appointed day. Their answer to this question was that the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta had no sucn jurisdiction. They further observed that had there been proceedings pending either in the Court at Jamalpur or in the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta on 15-8-1947, the legal position would have been altogether different.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1