Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Vasudeva Modeliar Vs. Shadagopa Modeliar

Vasudeva Modeliar vs Shadagopa Modeliar

Disposition Application dismissed Court Mumbai Decided May 17, 1906
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/334859
CiteSignal

Log in to get a daily email when new judgments cite this order.

Citation
Court
Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil
Disposition
Application dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vasudeva Modeliar

Respondent

Shadagopa Modeliar

Legal References

Reported In
(1906)8BOMLR497
Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Part of AI Studio: get a comprehensive 18-section AI Brief and case-scoped chat on this judgment, plus Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind from the AI Studio hub.

Log in to unlock AI Studio

Subscribers get structured AI Briefs and case-scoped chat. Learn more.

Excerpt

privy council-practice-application for stay of execution. applications for stay of execution ought always to be made, in the first instance at any rate to the court in india, which has ample power to deal with the matter according to the circumstances of the particular case, and has knowledge of details which the board cannot possess on an interlocutory application. - .....power to deal with the matter according to the circumstances of the particular case, and his knowledge of details which this board cannot possess on an interlocutory application. in the present case their lordships know no more than what is brought before them by affidavits not altogether satisfactory. there is, however, an indication in the judgment of the high court showing that in their opinion an extension of the stay of proceedings ought to be granted. acting upon that suggestion their lordships will humbly advise his majesty to grant a stay of proceedings on the appellants giving an undertaking by their counsel to lodge the petition of appeal and their case within a fortnight from the time the record arrives in england, and also at the same time to give the respondent leave to apply to the high court at madras either for the appointment of a receiver, or for payment of a reasonable amount into court, or any other relief which he may be advised to apply for. the appellants must pay the costs of this application in any event.

Full Judgment

Macnaghten, J.

1. Their Lordships desire to repeat what has been often stated by this Board before, namely, that applications of this sort ought always to be made, in the first instance at any rate, to the Court in India, which as sample power to deal with the matter according to the circumstances of the particular case, and his knowledge of details which this Board cannot possess on an interlocutory application. In the present case their Lordships know no more than what is brought before them by affidavits not altogether satisfactory. There is, however, an indication in the Judgment of the High Court showing that in their opinion an extension of the stay of proceedings ought to be granted. Acting upon that suggestion their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty to grant a stay of proceedings on the appellants giving an undertaking by their Counsel to lodge the petition of appeal and their case within a fortnight from the time the Record arrives in England, and also at the same time to give the respondent leave to apply to the High Court at Madras either for the appointment of a Receiver, or for payment of a reasonable amount into Court, or any other relief which he may be advised to apply for. The appellants must pay the costs of this application in any event.


Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files

Start your Free Trial