Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)Section 149 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Varada Ramaswami And Ors. vs Vumma Venkataratnam on 9 December, 1921
One of the conditions is that the question should be one which arose between the parties to the suit, that is, between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder. So an order refusing the rateable distribution between rival decree-holders is not appealable. We may refer to Laxminarayan Devastan v. Khanderao Yeshwantrao, AIR 1954 Bom 446 (B), Balmukund Jainarayana Maheshri v. Hirasao Narayansao Bania, AIR 1943 Nag 320 (C), Varada Ramaswami v. Vumma Venkataratnam, AIR 1922 Mad 99 (D), Bilasmal Damodar Das v. Haridas, AIR 1929 Lah 645 (E). In effect Sub-section (2) of Section 73 gives a right to the aggrieved party to bring a regular suit.
The Punjab Land Revenue Rules
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Laxminarayan Devastan And Ors. vs Khanderao Yeshwantrao And Ors. on 20 October, 1953
One of the conditions is that the question should be one which arose between the parties to the suit, that is, between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder. So an order refusing the rateable distribution between rival decree-holders is not appealable. We may refer to Laxminarayan Devastan v. Khanderao Yeshwantrao, AIR 1954 Bom 446 (B), Balmukund Jainarayana Maheshri v. Hirasao Narayansao Bania, AIR 1943 Nag 320 (C), Varada Ramaswami v. Vumma Venkataratnam, AIR 1922 Mad 99 (D), Bilasmal Damodar Das v. Haridas, AIR 1929 Lah 645 (E). In effect Sub-section (2) of Section 73 gives a right to the aggrieved party to bring a regular suit.
Kanji Valji vs Kalidas Thakursay on 18 November, 1938
In Kanji Valji v. Kalidas. Thakursay, AIR 1939 Cal 413 (H), a Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the proviso to Order XXI, Rule 52 simply lays down that if there is any dispute on the question of title or priority arising between the decree-holder and any other person, not being the judgment-debtor, claiming to be interested in the property attached by virtue of any assignment, attachment, or otherwise, that dispute is to be determined by the Court in whose custody the money is and that the proviso does not bar a regular suit. The Bench further held that any decision in such a proceeding between the decree-holder and the third person would not be a decision under Section 47. Civil Procedure Code and, therefore a regular suit would not be barred.
1