Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.84 seconds)
Rameshwar Prasad vs Ram Chandra Sharma And Ors. on 31 August, 1950 cites

Dwarika Halwai vs Sitla Prasad And Ors. on 18 January, 1940

They are of opinion that, no question of the decree being void or voidable having arisen in that Full Bench case, this interpretation by the learned Judges in the later case of Dwarika Halwai v. Sitla Prasad, (I. L. R. (1940) ALL. 344: A. I. R. (27) 1940 ALL. 256) is not correct. I very much regret to have come to a different conclusion. The question of the nature of the decree passed against the minor was essentially before the Full Bench, and it was open to the learned Judges to pronounce their views on that question, and, although the shorter point of the decree being void or voidable might not have specifically arisen in that case, their Lordships left no doubt in their discussion of the controversy that the decree was a nullity and, therefore, void; and they expressed themselves on the point in the clearest terms.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Mt. Siraj Fatima And Ors. vs Mahmood Ali And Ors. on 27 February, 1932

5. As I have already said, we are not called upon to decide the question whether the Full Bench of this Court in Siraj Fatma's case, (54 ALL. 646 : A. I. R. (19) 1932 ALL. 293 F. B.), laid down the correct law. The only point that we have to consider is whether a decree passed against a minor is void or voidable if the guardian ad litem of the minor was negligent in protecting the interest of the minor.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Krishnadas Padmanabhrao Chandavarkar vs Vithoba Annappa Shetti on 2 September, 1938

32. Next the learned counsel for the defendant cited the Full Bench case of Krishnadas Padmanabhrao v. Vithoba Annappa, A. I. R. (26) 1939 Bom. 68 (I. L. R. (1939) Bom. 310 F.B.), This, again, did not touch the question under consideration. The learned Judges held that, under the English Law, an infant could not challenge a decree properly passed against him on the ground that his guardian ad litem was guilty of gross negligence in suffering the decree and there is no reason why such a cause of action should lie in British India, remarking further that gross negligence, apart from fraud or collusion on the part of the next friend art guardian ad litem of a minor litigant, could not be made the basis of a suit to set aside a decree obtained against him.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next