Lekha Srinithi vs Lokenath Samy on 18 October, 2023
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi ... Lekha Srinithi
W/o. Loknathsami ... Petitioner
Vs.
Lokenath Samy
S/o. Pachatcharam ... Respondent
PRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section
clear from the judgment of Wilson, J., in Russickloll Mudduck v. Lokenath Kurmokar (1880) I.L.R., 5 Calc., 688, which is similar ... Russickloll Mudduck v. Lokenath Kurmokar (1880) I.L.R., 5 Calc., 611; the strict English law of irremovability, had also been enforced-Juggut Mohinee Dossee
Supp. Vol. F.B.R. 595; Russickloll Mudduck v. Lokenath Kurmokar (1880) I.L.R. 5 C. 688; the strict English law of irremovability ... original side decided the other way in Russickloll Mudduck v. Lokenath Kurmokar (1880) I.L.R. 5 C. 688 when he was free to decide
laws as explained in Paramanick" case. In Russick Loll Mudduck v. Lokenath Kurmoker I.L.R. 5C. 688 Wilson, J., held that the relation
were the persons entitled to execute the decree.
7. In Bhubneshwar v. Lokenath , Imam, C.J., as he then was, held that it should make
tenant on the decisions in Rupeswari Debi v. M/s. Lokenath Hosiery ' Basant Lal v. Boora Ram , and /V.S. Ramamoorthi ... under the Act. Similarly, the decision in Rupeswari Debi v. M/s. Lokenath Hosiery would also be inapplicable as in that case it was held
minor entered into by his guardian. See Rambilas v. Lokenath (1948) I.L.R. 27 Pat. 143 and Abdul Rao v. Yehia Khan
Superintendent, Preventive, Service Customs Calcutta v Charandas Malhotra and M/s Lokenath Tolaram etc. v. B. N. Rangwani, . Strong reliance was also placed ... Superintendent Preventive Service Customs, Calcutta v. Cheran Das Malhotra, and M/s. Lokenath Tolaram v. B. N. Rangwani , . Having regard to the difference
that of the Patna High Court in the case of Rai Bahadur Lokenath Prasad Dhandhania v. CIT [1940] 8 ITR 369.
4. The Tribunal ... could not enter into a partnership. In the case of Rai Bahadur Lokenath Prasad Dhandhania [1940] 8 ITR 369 (Patna). the karta of a Hindu
suit such misdescription as to render the doctrine of lis pendens inapplicable. Lokenath v. Achitananda (1909) 15 CLJ 391.
4. As, however, I. have held
